INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on August 14, 2009, 01:33:11 PM
-
why do so many in the US seem to feel so threatened by health reforms?
do any of the american posters here actually believe the lies people like sarah palin are fabricating?
over here it all looks absolutely insane
or is it just being covered badly by the media?
the NHS might have it problems, and it's far from perfect. but we don't have death panels here, we don't euthanise old ladies, and stephen hawkins actually benefited from our health care if i'm not mistaken ???
i know politicians lie, but these latest ones seem to be way too transparent. yet a lot of people are apparently buying it..?
-
Well, Europeans buy the lies that gun laws are there to protect the citizens and that freedom of speech must be infringed to protect minorities just to mention two of the most common lies here.
-
not really the same. people aren't against guns here because they're falling for a load of lies the government are feeding them. most people are completely aware of how things are in the US. they still don't want the same for their country. and most people do support free speech from what i've seen.
being against gun ownership is usually not because of ignorance. and i think people in europe tend to support free speech more, if anything
these death panels / stephen hawkins / communist comments are outright lies though.
-
why do so many in the US seem to feel so threatened by health reforms?
do any of the american posters here actually believe the lies people like sarah palin are fabricating?
over here it all looks absolutely insane
or is it just being covered badly by the media?
Doubt it. Sarah Palin is insane so I don't doubt a single thing said about her in the news.
-
Also, I think the hysteria is partly due to the fact that Obama suggested it. Many are doing their best to try and bring him down in the eyes of the public.
-
being against gun ownership is usually not because of ignorance. and i think people in europe tend to support free speech more, if anything
Yes it is. Most cowardly gun haters (a tautology) have usually never touched a gun IRL. They think about guns as something with an evil "power" or something. It's just a piece of some hundred grams of metal/plastic/wood, some grams of nitrocellulose and some milligrams of lead azide.
-
being against gun ownership is usually not because of ignorance. and i think people in europe tend to support free speech more, if anything
Yes it is. Most cowardly gun haters (a tautology) have usually never touched a gun IRL. They think about guns as something with an evil "power" or something. It's just a piece of some hundred grams of metal/plastic/wood, some grams of nitrocellulose and some milligrams of lead azide.
how does that change anything? it could be made of fluff and feathers and that wouldn't change a thing. people aren't stupid
-
being against gun ownership is usually not because of ignorance. and i think people in europe tend to support free speech more, if anything
Yes it is. Most cowardly gun haters (a tautology) have usually never touched a gun IRL. They think about guns as something with an evil "power" or something. It's just a piece of some hundred grams of metal/plastic/wood, some grams of nitrocellulose and some milligrams of lead azide.
Lol - might want to check how that is supposed to be used...
-
being against gun ownership is usually not because of ignorance. and i think people in europe tend to support free speech more, if anything
Yes it is. Most cowardly gun haters (a tautology) have usually never touched a gun IRL. They think about guns as something with an evil "power" or something. It's just a piece of some hundred grams of metal/plastic/wood, some grams of nitrocellulose and some milligrams of lead azide.
how does that change anything? it could be made of fluff and feathers and that wouldn't change a thing. people aren't stupid
Yes, people are stupid. They don't think in a rational way. Why not starting with banning cars, tobacco and alcohol, if you want to save lives? Each one of them kills a hell of a lot more people than guns, but the stupid mob just believe what the politicians and the media tells them.
-
being against gun ownership is usually not because of ignorance. and i think people in europe tend to support free speech more, if anything
Yes it is. Most cowardly gun haters (a tautology) have usually never touched a gun IRL. They think about guns as something with an evil "power" or something. It's just a piece of some hundred grams of metal/plastic/wood, some grams of nitrocellulose and some milligrams of lead azide.
how does that change anything? it could be made of fluff and feathers and that wouldn't change a thing. people aren't stupid
Yes, people are stupid. They don't think in a rational way. Why not starting with banning cars, tobacco and alcohol, if you want to save lives? Each one of them kills a hell of a lot more people than guns, but the stupid mob just believe what the politicians and the media tells them.
Those two generally take a fair amount of time and uses to kill, if they kill at all. A gun could kill you in a few seconds.
-
This pretty well sums it up (from that Swedish board translated to English):
"The only reason that the people of Sweden may not own weapons as they want is that the state knows that it fucks with us and we do not have a chance to defend ourselves.
The state is not afraid of the people, which leads to the sickest Act after the other."
-
being against gun ownership is usually not because of ignorance. and i think people in europe tend to support free speech more, if anything
Yes it is. Most cowardly gun haters (a tautology) have usually never touched a gun IRL. They think about guns as something with an evil "power" or something. It's just a piece of some hundred grams of metal/plastic/wood, some grams of nitrocellulose and some milligrams of lead azide.
how does that change anything? it could be made of fluff and feathers and that wouldn't change a thing. people aren't stupid
Yes, people are stupid. They don't think in a rational way. Why not starting with banning cars, tobacco and alcohol, if you want to save lives? Each one of them kills a hell of a lot more people than guns, but the stupid mob just believe what the politicians and the media tells them.
Those two generally take a fair amount of time and uses to kill, if they kill at all. A gun could kill you in a few seconds.
What does it matter? 435000 Americans die of tobacco every year, but you don't hear hysterical cries for banning of cigarettes.
-
being against gun ownership is usually not because of ignorance. and i think people in europe tend to support free speech more, if anything
Yes it is. Most cowardly gun haters (a tautology) have usually never touched a gun IRL. They think about guns as something with an evil "power" or something. It's just a piece of some hundred grams of metal/plastic/wood, some grams of nitrocellulose and some milligrams of lead azide.
how does that change anything? it could be made of fluff and feathers and that wouldn't change a thing. people aren't stupid
Yes, people are stupid. They don't think in a rational way. Why not starting with banning cars, tobacco and alcohol, if you want to save lives? Each one of them kills a hell of a lot more people than guns, but the stupid mob just believe what the politicians and the media tells them.
Those two generally take a fair amount of time and uses to kill, if they kill at all. A gun could kill you in a few seconds.
What does it matter? 435000 Americans die of tobacco every year, but you don't hear hysterical cries for banning of cigarettes.
You don't understand that a person knows the risks that come with smoking. Nobody is forcing them to do so, they do it out of their own free will. If somebody shoots you, you have no say in the matter.
-
being against gun ownership is usually not because of ignorance. and i think people in europe tend to support free speech more, if anything
Yes it is. Most cowardly gun haters (a tautology) have usually never touched a gun IRL. They think about guns as something with an evil "power" or something. It's just a piece of some hundred grams of metal/plastic/wood, some grams of nitrocellulose and some milligrams of lead azide.
how does that change anything? it could be made of fluff and feathers and that wouldn't change a thing. people aren't stupid
Yes, people are stupid. They don't think in a rational way. Why not starting with banning cars, tobacco and alcohol, if you want to save lives? Each one of them kills a hell of a lot more people than guns, but the stupid mob just believe what the politicians and the media tells them.
Those two generally take a fair amount of time and uses to kill, if they kill at all. A gun could kill you in a few seconds.
What does it matter? 435000 Americans die of tobacco every year, but you don't hear hysterical cries for banning of cigarettes.
You don't understand that a person knows the risks that come with smoking. Nobody is forcing them to do so, they do it out of their own free will. If somebody shoots you, you have no say in the matter.
Yes I have. I can shoot back. If not the state denies me the right to self-defense like in sick fucking Sweden or sick fucking UK.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Preventable_causes_of_death.png)
-
being against gun ownership is usually not because of ignorance. and i think people in europe tend to support free speech more, if anything
Yes it is. Most cowardly gun haters (a tautology) have usually never touched a gun IRL. They think about guns as something with an evil "power" or something. It's just a piece of some hundred grams of metal/plastic/wood, some grams of nitrocellulose and some milligrams of lead azide.
how does that change anything? it could be made of fluff and feathers and that wouldn't change a thing. people aren't stupid
Yes, people are stupid. They don't think in a rational way. Why not starting with banning cars, tobacco and alcohol, if you want to save lives? Each one of them kills a hell of a lot more people than guns, but the stupid mob just believe what the politicians and the media tells them.
Those two generally take a fair amount of time and uses to kill, if they kill at all. A gun could kill you in a few seconds.
What does it matter? 435000 Americans die of tobacco every year, but you don't hear hysterical cries for banning of cigarettes.
Well, in fact there is hysteria about smoking. But smoking mainly slowly kills the smoker. A gun can be used to deliberately kill another person. And the one holding the gun can take the power the gun gives as an incentive to have the right to judge about death and life. That's what it is about.
-
being against gun ownership is usually not because of ignorance. and i think people in europe tend to support free speech more, if anything
Yes it is. Most cowardly gun haters (a tautology) have usually never touched a gun IRL. They think about guns as something with an evil "power" or something. It's just a piece of some hundred grams of metal/plastic/wood, some grams of nitrocellulose and some milligrams of lead azide.
how does that change anything? it could be made of fluff and feathers and that wouldn't change a thing. people aren't stupid
Yes, people are stupid. They don't think in a rational way. Why not starting with banning cars, tobacco and alcohol, if you want to save lives? Each one of them kills a hell of a lot more people than guns, but the stupid mob just believe what the politicians and the media tells them.
Those two generally take a fair amount of time and uses to kill, if they kill at all. A gun could kill you in a few seconds.
What does it matter? 435000 Americans die of tobacco every year, but you don't hear hysterical cries for banning of cigarettes.
You don't understand that a person knows the risks that come with smoking. Nobody is forcing them to do so, they do it out of their own free will. If somebody shoots you, you have no say in the matter.
Yes I have. I can shoot back. If not the state denies me the right to self-defense like in sick fucking Sweden or sick fucking UK.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Preventable_causes_of_death.png)
If it was a Western style duel, yeah you may have time to shoot back. If somebody shoots you randomly, when you're asleep, in the shower or just with your back turned, there is nothing you can do to save yourself. Most of those, alcohol, drugs, smoking, STDS are just human stupidity. If people were more careful and health concious they wouldn't be dead.
-
Funny that guns come up here.
NHS or other social health insurances are about shared responsibilities and care.
Owning a gun is about individual power.
-
Lit brought up guns :lol:
-
This pretty well sums it up (from that Swedish board translated to English):
"The only reason that the people of Sweden may not own weapons as they want is that the state knows that it fucks with us and we do not have a chance to defend ourselves.
The state is not afraid of the people, which leads to the sickest Act after the other."
Wasn't this thread about the NHS and Obama's brave new world? There's already a gun thread. :P
-
Owning a gun is about being able to defend yourself against your government if the shit hits the fan. Thats one thing I agree with lit on.
-
Owning a gun is about being able to defend yourself against your government if the shit hits the fan. Thats one thing I agree with lit on.
:plus:
-
Owning a gun is about being able to defend yourself against your government if the shit hits the fan. Thats one thing I agree with lit on.
Sure, but the subject at hand had very little to do with guns. We already know it's his great obsession.
-
Owning a gun is about being able to defend yourself against your government if the shit hits the fan. Thats one thing I agree with lit on.
Sure, but the subject at hand had very little to do with guns. We already knows it's his great obsession.
One of them. :P
-
I may have my questions about my government. But I'm glad that they've got things like national health arranged in a pretty decent way. Would never have been possible without a functional government. Then we would be depending on the goodwill of some religious groups I fear. And some may do a terrific job. But having it arranged as a right is better imo.
-
Owning a gun is about being able to defend yourself against your government if the shit hits the fan. Thats one thing I agree with lit on.
Sure, but the subject at hand had very little to do with guns. We already knows it's his great obsession.
OH ok. I get it. :thumbup:
-
Owning a gun is about being able to defend yourself against your government if the shit hits the fan. Thats one thing I agree with lit on.
Sure, but the subject at hand had very little to do with guns. We already knows it's his great obsession.
One of them. :P
:laugh:
-
I'm glad we have our so called socialist health care system. I can see a GP and not have to pay money. I can visit and an Emergency Room and not have a bill. And because I'm on a Disability Support Pension, I get free Ambulance too (any low income earner gets free Ambulance). To have a baby in a hospital is also completely free.
Well I'm sure that wouldn't be good Americans though apparently.
Seriously though, I really don't understand why those Americans against it have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are now. From what I understand, even minor medical emergencies can wipe out a low income earner there. Correct me if I'm wrong.
-
AFAIK, yesterday's eye exam would have cost me a fortune in the US. In fact, I would probably not have done it, the way I understand the health insurance system works, and I certainly couldn't afford next week's more thorough exam. A friend of mine works at Eli Lily's in Indianapolis and told me some pretty scary stuff about how their insurance works. It seems that the system would not even allow a second opinion like the one I'll get. I would have to pay for it myself.
-
being against gun ownership is usually not because of ignorance. and i think people in europe tend to support free speech more, if anything
Yes it is. Most cowardly gun haters (a tautology) have usually never touched a gun IRL. They think about guns as something with an evil "power" or something. It's just a piece of some hundred grams of metal/plastic/wood, some grams of nitrocellulose and some milligrams of lead azide.
how does that change anything? it could be made of fluff and feathers and that wouldn't change a thing. people aren't stupid
Yes, people are stupid. They don't think in a rational way. Why not starting with banning cars, tobacco and alcohol, if you want to save lives? Each one of them kills a hell of a lot more people than guns, but the stupid mob just believe what the politicians and the media tells them.
what kind of world are you living in? cars are not designed to kill. yes they are dangerous in the wrong hands, but so are a lot of things. guns are actually designed to be lethal though. tobacco and alcohol don't kill others (yeah yeah i know passive smoking and unborn babies etc, but that's hardly the same)
-
being against gun ownership is usually not because of ignorance. and i think people in europe tend to support free speech more, if anything
Yes it is. Most cowardly gun haters (a tautology) have usually never touched a gun IRL. They think about guns as something with an evil "power" or something. It's just a piece of some hundred grams of metal/plastic/wood, some grams of nitrocellulose and some milligrams of lead azide.
how does that change anything? it could be made of fluff and feathers and that wouldn't change a thing. people aren't stupid
Yes, people are stupid. They don't think in a rational way. Why not starting with banning cars, tobacco and alcohol, if you want to save lives? Each one of them kills a hell of a lot more people than guns, but the stupid mob just believe what the politicians and the media tells them.
what kind of world are you living in? cars are not designed to kill. yes they are dangerous in the wrong hands, but so are a lot of things. guns are actually designed to be lethal though. tobacco and alcohol don't kill others (yeah yeah i know passive smoking and unborn babies etc, but that's hardly the same)
I don't see what the purpose means when the result is that cars kill more people than guns.
-
If somebody shoots you, you have no say in the matter.
Yes I have. I can shoot back.
[/quote]
lol you are making yourself look like an idiot, lit
once you're dead, you can't shoot back.
-
what do you guys thing the government is gonna do?
why do we need to defend ourselves from the government on a day-to-day basis? if something major happened, i'm sure the people would be able to get hold of weapons. although tbh i don't see the threat. what are the government gonna do to us?
-
People have read too many books like We or 1984 :zoinks:
-
and then complain about a big brother state because we have cctv :thumbdn:
-
Restricting things like guns which most everyday people don't use is fine I guess, but when they come to take all the fun things on the internet away with their filtering and three strikes laws, fuck that shit.
-
being against gun ownership is usually not because of ignorance. and i think people in europe tend to support free speech more, if anything
Yes it is. Most cowardly gun haters (a tautology) have usually never touched a gun IRL. They think about guns as something with an evil "power" or something. It's just a piece of some hundred grams of metal/plastic/wood, some grams of nitrocellulose and some milligrams of lead azide.
how does that change anything? it could be made of fluff and feathers and that wouldn't change a thing. people aren't stupid
Yes, people are stupid. They don't think in a rational way. Why not starting with banning cars, tobacco and alcohol, if you want to save lives? Each one of them kills a hell of a lot more people than guns, but the stupid mob just believe what the politicians and the media tells them.
what kind of world are you living in? cars are not designed to kill. yes they are dangerous in the wrong hands, but so are a lot of things. guns are actually designed to be lethal though. tobacco and alcohol don't kill others (yeah yeah i know passive smoking and unborn babies etc, but that's hardly the same)
I don't see what the purpose means when the result is that cars kill more people than guns.
There are more cars in Sweden, and they are used a lot more too. So the comparision is not that valid.
-
what do you guys thing the government is gonna do?
why do we need to defend ourselves from the government on a day-to-day basis? if something major happened, i'm sure the people would be able to get hold of weapons. although tbh i don't see the threat. what are the government gonna do to us?
They want to make us slaves and get the feudal system back more or less. Yes, I'm serious.
-
being against gun ownership is usually not because of ignorance. and i think people in europe tend to support free speech more, if anything
Yes it is. Most cowardly gun haters (a tautology) have usually never touched a gun IRL. They think about guns as something with an evil "power" or something. It's just a piece of some hundred grams of metal/plastic/wood, some grams of nitrocellulose and some milligrams of lead azide.
how does that change anything? it could be made of fluff and feathers and that wouldn't change a thing. people aren't stupid
Yes, people are stupid. They don't think in a rational way. Why not starting with banning cars, tobacco and alcohol, if you want to save lives? Each one of them kills a hell of a lot more people than guns, but the stupid mob just believe what the politicians and the media tells them.
what kind of world are you living in? cars are not designed to kill. yes they are dangerous in the wrong hands, but so are a lot of things. guns are actually designed to be lethal though. tobacco and alcohol don't kill others (yeah yeah i know passive smoking and unborn babies etc, but that's hardly the same)
I don't see what the purpose means when the result is that cars kill more people than guns.
There are more cars in Sweden, and they are used a lot more too. So the comparision is not that valid.
In the US there are almost as many guns as cars and still cars kill more Americans.
-
being against gun ownership is usually not because of ignorance. and i think people in europe tend to support free speech more, if anything
Yes it is. Most cowardly gun haters (a tautology) have usually never touched a gun IRL. They think about guns as something with an evil "power" or something. It's just a piece of some hundred grams of metal/plastic/wood, some grams of nitrocellulose and some milligrams of lead azide.
how does that change anything? it could be made of fluff and feathers and that wouldn't change a thing. people aren't stupid
Yes, people are stupid. They don't think in a rational way. Why not starting with banning cars, tobacco and alcohol, if you want to save lives? Each one of them kills a hell of a lot more people than guns, but the stupid mob just believe what the politicians and the media tells them.
what kind of world are you living in? cars are not designed to kill. yes they are dangerous in the wrong hands, but so are a lot of things. guns are actually designed to be lethal though. tobacco and alcohol don't kill others (yeah yeah i know passive smoking and unborn babies etc, but that's hardly the same)
I don't see what the purpose means when the result is that cars kill more people than guns.
There are more cars in Sweden, and they are used a lot more too. So the comparision is not that valid.
In the US there are almost as many guns as cars and still cars kill more Americans.
People spend more time in cars than with guns in their hands. Could be a reason.
And they tend to do it all at the same time, in the same place.
Maybe we should ban traffic peaks. :P
-
And since we are concerned about general health here,
Staircases are the most dangerous things in a house.
Let's ban them too, by law. They probably are more dangerous than guns.
(I, do prefer a staircase in my house over a gun btw)
-
People spend more time in cars than with guns in their hands. Could be a reason.
And they tend to do it all at the same time, in the same place.
Maybe we should ban traffic peaks. :P
Or introduce a congestion charge :laugh:
-
And since we are concerned about general health here,
Staircases are the most dangerous things in a house.
Let's ban them too, by law. They probably are more dangerous than guns.
(I, do prefer a staircase in my house over a gun btw)
Swimming pools are actually more dangerous than guns. There are only 6 million private swimming pools in the US and yet 450 kids were killed by swimming pools there last year. 100 times more than by guns by percentage.
-
Why not just ban everything and make people live in a glass box? :toporly:
-
:agreed:
-
Or put give TheoK the chance to hide safely in a glass box. Where he can sit and watch and mutter about the stupidity of humankind.
Would be a win-win situation.
-
And we could watch :zoinks:
-
Or put give TheoK the chance to hide safely in a glass box. Where he can sit and watch and mutter about the stupidity of humankind.
Would be a win-win situation.
I knew it! I knew it! You work for the Computer God and the hangman rope sneak parrotting puppet scum-on-top! :o :GA: :tinfoil: :tantrum: :arrr:
-
And since we are concerned about general health here,
Staircases are the most dangerous things in a house.
Let's ban them too, by law. They probably are more dangerous than guns.
(I, do prefer a staircase in my house over a gun btw)
Swimming pools are actually more dangerous than guns. There are only 6 million private swimming pools in the US and yet 450 kids were killed by swimming pools there last year. 100 times more than by guns by percentage.
I think here swimming pools are also used to prevent drowning. Kids learn to swim. Before there were swimminglessons, a lot more children died of drowning. And banning all open water would not be an option.
No matter what you'll do, life is a lethal condition. In the end, we all will die. There is no need to speed it up by guns. Somehow statistics and economic policies and public opinion does accept the amount of deaths by car as a price for the benefits of the car. It is debatable. But it is a different debate than the debate about guns.
National health service will have to be payed by everyone. Such a sharing concept is debatable. I am in favour of sharing the costs of that. And this is also a different debate than the debate about guns.
There is a connection in that it is about life and death. But they are different topics.
-
Or put give TheoK the chance to hide safely in a glass box. Where he can sit and watch and mutter about the stupidity of humankind.
Would be a win-win situation.
I knew it! I knew it! You work for the Computer God and the hangman rope sneak parrotting puppet scum-on-top! :o :GA: :tinfoil: :tantrum: :arrr:
No, I'm dutch, I want my share of the big-brother way of making money. And just watching you will do very well.
We'll make sure that you have fresh flowers every week. And in spring we'll get you red tulips. :hahaha:
-
Shush, wench! I know what I'm talking about! :arrr:
Dec (http://www.bentoandstarchky.com/dec/intro.htm)
-
being against gun ownership is usually not because of ignorance. and i think people in europe tend to support free speech more, if anything
Yes it is. Most cowardly gun haters (a tautology) have usually never touched a gun IRL. They think about guns as something with an evil "power" or something. It's just a piece of some hundred grams of metal/plastic/wood, some grams of nitrocellulose and some milligrams of lead azide.
how does that change anything? it could be made of fluff and feathers and that wouldn't change a thing. people aren't stupid
Yes, people are stupid. They don't think in a rational way. Why not starting with banning cars, tobacco and alcohol, if you want to save lives? Each one of them kills a hell of a lot more people than guns, but the stupid mob just believe what the politicians and the media tells them.
Those two generally take a fair amount of time and uses to kill, if they kill at all. A gun could kill you in a few seconds.
What does it matter? 435000 Americans die of tobacco every year, but you don't hear hysterical cries for banning of cigarettes.
Simple - kill one, scare 1000. Hence why guns are seen as more dangerous, fear is the ultimate form of power. Not to mention that people choose to smoke ciggies and the death is almost invisible.
-
back to the original topic, you should just ignore the sarah palin giberish that you see on your tv. she is paid by the deep pockets of health care, chempharm, and insurance companys.
just dont watch that channel anymore. news-e is propaganda.
-
i don't watch the news on tv that much anymore. most of what i've noticed about this has been from online.
it was when i saw how many idiots on facebook seemed to be believing this kind of shit that i decided to ask about it.
-
Strange how sharing responsibilities so quickly can turn into anxiety about commies.
-
i don't watch the news on tv that much anymore. most of what i've noticed about this has been from online.
it was when i saw how many idiots on facebook seemed to be believing this kind of shit that i decided to ask about it.
facebook is propaganda too, to an extent, depends on who are your friends, but that site in general has a conservative vibe to it.
myspace is owned by news e directly
back to the original topic, you should just ignore the sarah palin giberish that you see on your media box. she is paid by the deep pockets of health care, chempharm, and insurance companys.
just dont watch that channel anymore. news-e is propaganda.
fixed
-
i don't think anyone on my friends list has actually commented on it (at least not that i've seen)
it was mostly from the polls on there that i noticed how common it seemed to be - obviously most of the polls on there are american-oriented, and the healthcare reforms and/or obama were cropping up a hell of a lot
i haven't used myspace regularly since 2006
-
Strange how sharing responsibilities so quickly can turn into anxiety about commies.
No, they actually got a point. I met a friend from a former communist country some weeks ago. He said that he could never live in Sweden, becuase it reminded him too much of his own country during the communist time; too much laws and shit and incredibly high prices on everything.
-
Lit, why the fuck do you feel you need to take over this thread with your gun bullshit? There are several other thread where you could talk about guns because they are already about guns.
Fuck off so we can talk about the original stuff with out people questions and such being buried by your shit talk.
-
Strange how sharing responsibilities so quickly can turn into anxiety about commies.
No, they actually got a point. I met a friend from a former communist country some weeks ago. He said that he could never live in Sweden, becuase it reminded him too much of his own country during the communist time; too much laws and shit and incredibly high prices on everything.
Makes no sense. Prices for a lot of things went up dramatically in the former GDR after it reunited. And well, you would call Germany socialist too I guess.
If there is one proud of benefiting from the social system, it is you btw Lit.
Change it to a fully capitalistic system, and you could be living in the streets, maybe with a found throws away hot piece in you possession.
-
:zoinks:
-
I think that some people in the US are very afraid of change. Also I think that health insurance companies and others who have vested interests in preventing health care reform have spent a lot of money to stir up these people. Perhaps these people who are afraid of change have good health insurance now and they have never been in the situation my family has been in.
We had good insurance, a HMO through my husband's employer, when our daughter was born and it was a very good thing we did, because her medical care cost over $250,000 before she was six weeks old. Shortly after all this happened, my husband lost his job. I think that it was largely because the company's health insurance contract was coming up for renewal and it would be cheaper if they eliminated the employees who had made heavy use of their health insurance. About the same time, they also got rid of an employee who had a heart attack. I think that he may have been still in the hospital.
When my husband lost the job that had supplied us with health insurance, we were able to pay the COBRA for 18 months, which means that we were able to keep the health insurance policy by paying the company's share of insurance costs in addition to our share plus a small added administrative fee. Then we had to figure out how to insure our daughter with her pre-existing health conditions and we found it almost impossible. My husband quickly got another job, but its insurance didn't cover us at the time. In the end, we were able to pay an exorbitant price for something called 'continuation coverage' which was the most expensive and worst insurance we had ever had in our lives, but at least they had to cover our daughter's pre-existing conditions. Finally, my husband's company changed their insurance carrier to one that covered us, so we have regular insurance now.
IMO, here's the bad thing about the NHS: If they want to contain costs, then they have to ration care. So I think there is a little germ of truth to what they say about adding a year to Stephen Hawking's life possibly being considered less worthwhile to the NHS than adding a year to a healthy person's life. To take this quality of life into account, the NHS uses something called a QALY or Quality-Adjusted Life Year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year). Everyone's quality of life is rated, with a perfectly healthy person getting a 1.0 and a dead person getting a 0.0. For example, I read that if you have "some problems with performing usual activities, some pain or discomfort," you get a rating of 0.76. Right now, I have some pain from a sprained right ankle and this has been limiting my mobility a bit, so I think I would probably get a QALY of 0.76, which means that to the NHS, adding a year to my life would be worth about three-fourths as much as adding a year to the life of a perfectly healthy person. I have no idea what Stephen Hawking's QALY is, but it is arguably less than 1.0.
Medical treatments are assessed by their cost per QALY, so if chemotherapy that cost $100,000 would extend the life of a hypothetical cancer patient by five years, and if the NHS thinks those five years would be crappy ones and gives that patient a QALY of 0.20, then that treatment doesn't cost $20,000 per year, it costs $100,000 per QALY. Right now, the British health care system generally doesn't cover treatments that cost more than about $50,000 per QALY, so that particular cancer patient would not get his $100,000 chemotherapy.
I think that what a lot of Americans aren't taking into account is that we also ration care in the US, but we use a different metric. If a person is uninsured and can't afford to pay for an expensive treatment themselves and they aren't destitute enough to be covered by Medicaid, then they don't get the treatment. Also, quite often, some insurance company refuses to pay for a particular drug or procedure because of something in the fine print in their policy. Maybe people could see this issue as one over which they have more control because for one thing they often have some lmited amount of control over which insurance company they select. Also, if it's just an insurance company who refuses to cover a certain treatment, then the issue could be fought in a court if necessary, and the resulting bad press may cause the insurance company to relent and pay for the treatment. However, if we have just the government as a single payer, then there is much less room for appeal if they refuses to cover a treatment.
-
One thing which has been missed off - anyone in the UK can buy private health insurance and over 10% of the population do so. The irony is that the NHS has to spend money very often clearing up mistakes in private hospitals.
So in short in the UK we have a brilliant level of basic healthcare and for the few snobs which are not satisfied, there is private healthcare - which thanks to the NHS, in order to compete the prices are usually reasonable.
-
its obvious, to me, that it's just afraid of that guy that makes more sense.
-
One thing which has been missed off - anyone in the UK can buy private health insurance and over 10% of the population do so. The irony is that the NHS has to spend money very often clearing up mistakes in private hospitals.
So in short in the UK we have a brilliant level of basic healthcare and for the few snobs which are not satisfied, there is private healthcare - which thanks to the NHS, in order to compete the prices are usually reasonable.
We have the same system in Sweden.
-
One thing which has been missed off - anyone in the UK can buy private health insurance and over 10% of the population do so. The irony is that the NHS has to spend money very often clearing up mistakes in private hospitals.
So in short in the UK we have a brilliant level of basic healthcare and for the few snobs which are not satisfied, there is private healthcare - which thanks to the NHS, in order to compete the prices are usually reasonable.
We have the same system in Sweden.
More or less. Our basic healthcare is not free but it is inexpensive.
-
One thing which has been missed off - anyone in the UK can buy private health insurance and over 10% of the population do so. The irony is that the NHS has to spend money very often clearing up mistakes in private hospitals.
So in short in the UK we have a brilliant level of basic healthcare and for the few snobs which are not satisfied, there is private healthcare - which thanks to the NHS, in order to compete the prices are usually reasonable.
I don't think private healthcare is all that bad. It's certainly more efficient and less time-consuming. I tried private psychotherapy for a while before our insurance ran out (the guy charged 400 pounds for an hour :zombiefuck:) and I have to say, I quite liked it. We were desperate and the NHS was taking fucking ages. One time when I was younger, it took the NHS 7 months to find me a psychotherapist. I would definitely recommend that aspect of private healthcare. They get things done :thumbup:
-
One thing which has been missed off - anyone in the UK can buy private health insurance and over 10% of the population do so. The irony is that the NHS has to spend money very often clearing up mistakes in private hospitals.
So in short in the UK we have a brilliant level of basic healthcare and for the few snobs which are not satisfied, there is private healthcare - which thanks to the NHS, in order to compete the prices are usually reasonable.
I don't think private healthcare is all that bad. It's certainly more efficient and less time-consuming. I tried private psychotherapy for a while before our insurance ran out (the guy charged 400 pounds for an hour :zombiefuck:) and I have to say, I quite liked it. We were desperate and the NHS was taking fucking ages. One time when I was younger, it took the NHS 7 months to find me a psychotherapist. I would definitely recommend that aspect of private healthcare. They get things done :thumbup:
Private healthcare isnt a bad thing (unlike private education) because you are not massively disadvatanged in most cases for not having it. I am more curious as to how a psychotherapist managed to give you £400/hour benefit.
-
(the guy charged 400 pounds for an hour ZOMBIE!!!)
Fuck I pay a ten dollar copay the insurance pays another 65
-
One thing which has been missed off - anyone in the UK can buy private health insurance and over 10% of the population do so. The irony is that the NHS has to spend money very often clearing up mistakes in private hospitals.
So in short in the UK we have a brilliant level of basic healthcare and for the few snobs which are not satisfied, there is private healthcare - which thanks to the NHS, in order to compete the prices are usually reasonable.
I don't think private healthcare is all that bad. It's certainly more efficient and less time-consuming. I tried private psychotherapy for a while before our insurance ran out (the guy charged 400 pounds for an hour :zombiefuck:) and I have to say, I quite liked it. We were desperate and the NHS was taking fucking ages. One time when I was younger, it took the NHS 7 months to find me a psychotherapist. I would definitely recommend that aspect of private healthcare. They get things done :thumbup:
I've found that you generally get what you pay for. That's why when I went to get DX'ed, I paid for it out of my own pocket and luckily they let me pay it off with a payment plan.
-
One thing which has been missed off - anyone in the UK can buy private health insurance and over 10% of the population do so. The irony is that the NHS has to spend money very often clearing up mistakes in private hospitals.
So in short in the UK we have a brilliant level of basic healthcare and for the few snobs which are not satisfied, there is private healthcare - which thanks to the NHS, in order to compete the prices are usually reasonable.
I don't think private healthcare is all that bad. It's certainly more efficient and less time-consuming. I tried private psychotherapy for a while before our insurance ran out (the guy charged 400 pounds for an hour :zombiefuck:) and I have to say, I quite liked it. We were desperate and the NHS was taking fucking ages. One time when I was younger, it took the NHS 7 months to find me a psychotherapist. I would definitely recommend that aspect of private healthcare. They get things done :thumbup:
I've found that you generally get what you pay for. That's why when I went to get DX'ed, I paid for it out of my own pocket and luckily they let me pay it off with a payment plan.
Did you get your money back eventually with disability payments and the like. My AS is worth nearly £2000 a year these days...
-
going private is sometimes the only option with psych stuff. because i had just turned 18, i couldn't see an autism specialist on the NHS here. so i had to go private in sheffield. still had to wait from september till january, but at least i got there
social services have been shit for me. if i was violent, i'd have got help. but we had to get the MP involved for them to do anything for me as i am. too late though really, i got through it myself.
when it comes to physical stuff though, there's no way in hell i'd want them to get rid of the NHS. obviously it has it's faults, but it's better than none at all
and yeah, if people don't like it, they can go private
-
One thing which has been missed off - anyone in the UK can buy private health insurance and over 10% of the population do so. The irony is that the NHS has to spend money very often clearing up mistakes in private hospitals.
So in short in the UK we have a brilliant level of basic healthcare and for the few snobs which are not satisfied, there is private healthcare - which thanks to the NHS, in order to compete the prices are usually reasonable.
I don't think private healthcare is all that bad. It's certainly more efficient and less time-consuming. I tried private psychotherapy for a while before our insurance ran out (the guy charged 400 pounds for an hour :zombiefuck:) and I have to say, I quite liked it. We were desperate and the NHS was taking fucking ages. One time when I was younger, it took the NHS 7 months to find me a psychotherapist. I would definitely recommend that aspect of private healthcare. They get things done :thumbup:
I've found that you generally get what you pay for. That's why when I went to get DX'ed, I paid for it out of my own pocket and luckily they let me pay it off with a payment plan.
Did you get your money back eventually with disability payments and the like. My AS is worth nearly £2000 a year these days...
Never though of it that way, but yeah, I guess so. It's a bit more than unemployment benefits, plus I don't have to either screw around with looking for work or getting doctors certificates all the time.
-
going private is sometimes the only option with psych stuff. because i had just turned 18, i couldn't see an autism specialist on the NHS here. so i had to go private in sheffield. still had to wait from september till january, but at least i got there
social services have been shit for me. if i was violent, i'd have got help. but we had to get the MP involved for them to do anything for me as i am. too late though really, i got through it myself.
when it comes to physical stuff though, there's no way in hell i'd want them to get rid of the NHS. obviously it has it's faults, but it's better than none at all
and yeah, if people don't like it, they can go private
You're right, public shrinks and stuff are really shit. If you are any good at that kind of thing, you aren't going to be working for peanuts, you are going to be private and charge a bit more.
GP's on the other hand, don't really have a tough job of things so you can pretty much go to anybody.
-
One thing which has been missed off - anyone in the UK can buy private health insurance and over 10% of the population do so. The irony is that the NHS has to spend money very often clearing up mistakes in private hospitals.
So in short in the UK we have a brilliant level of basic healthcare and for the few snobs which are not satisfied, there is private healthcare - which thanks to the NHS, in order to compete the prices are usually reasonable.
I don't think private healthcare is all that bad. It's certainly more efficient and less time-consuming. I tried private psychotherapy for a while before our insurance ran out (the guy charged 400 pounds for an hour :zombiefuck:) and I have to say, I quite liked it. We were desperate and the NHS was taking fucking ages. One time when I was younger, it took the NHS 7 months to find me a psychotherapist. I would definitely recommend that aspect of private healthcare. They get things done :thumbup:
Private healthcare isnt a bad thing (unlike private education) because you are not massively disadvatanged in most cases for not having it. I am more curious as to how a psychotherapist managed to give you £400/hour benefit.
Well he did nearly manage to give me my BPD dx. Unfortunately the money ran out too soon so I only managed 3-4 sessions with him. He was obviously full of bs at times (like when he was apparently fascinated by what music I listen to) but then all psychotherapists are to a certain degree. The one I have now is fucking stupid ::)
-
One thing which has been missed off - anyone in the UK can buy private health insurance and over 10% of the population do so. The irony is that the NHS has to spend money very often clearing up mistakes in private hospitals.
So in short in the UK we have a brilliant level of basic healthcare and for the few snobs which are not satisfied, there is private healthcare - which thanks to the NHS, in order to compete the prices are usually reasonable.
I don't think private healthcare is all that bad. It's certainly more efficient and less time-consuming. I tried private psychotherapy for a while before our insurance ran out (the guy charged 400 pounds for an hour :zombiefuck:) and I have to say, I quite liked it. We were desperate and the NHS was taking fucking ages. One time when I was younger, it took the NHS 7 months to find me a psychotherapist. I would definitely recommend that aspect of private healthcare. They get things done :thumbup:
Private healthcare isnt a bad thing (unlike private education) because you are not massively disadvatanged in most cases for not having it. I am more curious as to how a psychotherapist managed to give you £400/hour benefit.
Well he did nearly manage to give me my BPD dx. Unfortunately the money ran out too soon so I only managed 3-4 sessions with him. He was obviously full of bs at times (like when he was apparently fascinated by what music I listen to) but then all psychotherapists are to a certain degree. The one I have now is fucking stupid ::)
Still, £1600 for a bipolar diagnosis seems a bit ridiculous - I reckon it could be done a lot more cheaply. I must be doing the wrong degree if you can earn £400 an hour as a shrink, though I could go into banking I guess (well if I could stand the people there anyway).
I visited a counsellor once (just to prove a point with my doctor) and it was such a waste of time - no idea how it helps people.
-
One thing which has been missed off - anyone in the UK can buy private health insurance and over 10% of the population do so. The irony is that the NHS has to spend money very often clearing up mistakes in private hospitals.
So in short in the UK we have a brilliant level of basic healthcare and for the few snobs which are not satisfied, there is private healthcare - which thanks to the NHS, in order to compete the prices are usually reasonable.
I don't think private healthcare is all that bad. It's certainly more efficient and less time-consuming. I tried private psychotherapy for a while before our insurance ran out (the guy charged 400 pounds for an hour :zombiefuck:) and I have to say, I quite liked it. We were desperate and the NHS was taking fucking ages. One time when I was younger, it took the NHS 7 months to find me a psychotherapist. I would definitely recommend that aspect of private healthcare. They get things done :thumbup:
Private healthcare isnt a bad thing (unlike private education) because you are not massively disadvatanged in most cases for not having it. I am more curious as to how a psychotherapist managed to give you £400/hour benefit.
Well he did nearly manage to give me my BPD dx. Unfortunately the money ran out too soon so I only managed 3-4 sessions with him. He was obviously full of bs at times (like when he was apparently fascinated by what music I listen to) but then all psychotherapists are to a certain degree. The one I have now is fucking stupid ::)
Still, £1600 for a bipolar diagnosis seems a bit ridiculous - I reckon it could be done a lot more cheaply. I must be doing the wrong degree if you can earn £400 an hour as a shrink, though I could go into banking I guess (well if I could stand the people there anyway).
I visited a counsellor once (just to prove a point with my doctor) and it was such a waste of time - no idea how it helps people.
Not bipolar but Bordeline Personality Disorder :P It helps to have someone who's completely impartial to you, listen to your whining for a while. At least it helps me.
Apparently, in LA animal shrinks get thousands of dollars :orly:
-
One thing which has been missed off - anyone in the UK can buy private health insurance and over 10% of the population do so. The irony is that the NHS has to spend money very often clearing up mistakes in private hospitals.
So in short in the UK we have a brilliant level of basic healthcare and for the few snobs which are not satisfied, there is private healthcare - which thanks to the NHS, in order to compete the prices are usually reasonable.
I don't think private healthcare is all that bad. It's certainly more efficient and less time-consuming. I tried private psychotherapy for a while before our insurance ran out (the guy charged 400 pounds for an hour :zombiefuck:) and I have to say, I quite liked it. We were desperate and the NHS was taking fucking ages. One time when I was younger, it took the NHS 7 months to find me a psychotherapist. I would definitely recommend that aspect of private healthcare. They get things done :thumbup:
Private healthcare isnt a bad thing (unlike private education) because you are not massively disadvatanged in most cases for not having it. I am more curious as to how a psychotherapist managed to give you £400/hour benefit.
Well he did nearly manage to give me my BPD dx. Unfortunately the money ran out too soon so I only managed 3-4 sessions with him. He was obviously full of bs at times (like when he was apparently fascinated by what music I listen to) but then all psychotherapists are to a certain degree. The one I have now is fucking stupid ::)
Still, £1600 for a bipolar diagnosis seems a bit ridiculous - I reckon it could be done a lot more cheaply. I must be doing the wrong degree if you can earn £400 an hour as a shrink, though I could go into banking I guess (well if I could stand the people there anyway).
I visited a counsellor once (just to prove a point with my doctor) and it was such a waste of time - no idea how it helps people.
Not bipolar but Bordeline Personality Disorder :P It helps to have someone who's completely impartial to you, listen to your whining for a while. At least it helps me.
Apparently, in LA animal shrinks get thousands of dollars :orly:
Sorry, I slept through most of my psychology lectures, all they did was cite their own papers for the most part. £400 for someone to listen for an hour still seems a bit ridiculous to me, in any case.
-
One thing which has been missed off - anyone in the UK can buy private health insurance and over 10% of the population do so. The irony is that the NHS has to spend money very often clearing up mistakes in private hospitals.
So in short in the UK we have a brilliant level of basic healthcare and for the few snobs which are not satisfied, there is private healthcare - which thanks to the NHS, in order to compete the prices are usually reasonable.
I don't think private healthcare is all that bad. It's certainly more efficient and less time-consuming. I tried private psychotherapy for a while before our insurance ran out (the guy charged 400 pounds for an hour :zombiefuck:) and I have to say, I quite liked it. We were desperate and the NHS was taking fucking ages. One time when I was younger, it took the NHS 7 months to find me a psychotherapist. I would definitely recommend that aspect of private healthcare. They get things done :thumbup:
Private healthcare isnt a bad thing (unlike private education) because you are not massively disadvatanged in most cases for not having it. I am more curious as to how a psychotherapist managed to give you £400/hour benefit.
Well he did nearly manage to give me my BPD dx. Unfortunately the money ran out too soon so I only managed 3-4 sessions with him. He was obviously full of bs at times (like when he was apparently fascinated by what music I listen to) but then all psychotherapists are to a certain degree. The one I have now is fucking stupid ::)
Still, £1600 for a bipolar diagnosis seems a bit ridiculous - I reckon it could be done a lot more cheaply. I must be doing the wrong degree if you can earn £400 an hour as a shrink, though I could go into banking I guess (well if I could stand the people there anyway).
I visited a counsellor once (just to prove a point with my doctor) and it was such a waste of time - no idea how it helps people.
Not bipolar but Bordeline Personality Disorder :P It helps to have someone who's completely impartial to you, listen to your whining for a while. At least it helps me.
Apparently, in LA animal shrinks get thousands of dollars :orly:
Borderline Personality Disorder just means that the shrink really has no idea what is wrong with you except that you are messed up in the head somewhere.
-
oh man yeah I hate it when people you're paying to help you sort your head out pretend to be interetsted in the music you listen to and try and talk to you about it. I really hate pointless conversations in person
I only had to see a psych one time to get my AS diagnosis.he diagnosed me with social anxiety disorder while i was there.
I dunno if I technically have an OCD diagnosis, but I've been on meds for it and seen a psych for it so pretty much
I seriously doubt whether most psychs who don't specialise in autism can really help people with AS. it never happens with me anyway. dunno
-
i have a social worker now btw, and they've been round to my housea few times. seem really nice. the individual people themselves are often great. the people behind the scenes often just don't give a shit
-
One thing which has been missed off - anyone in the UK can buy private health insurance and over 10% of the population do so. The irony is that the NHS has to spend money very often clearing up mistakes in private hospitals.
So in short in the UK we have a brilliant level of basic healthcare and for the few snobs which are not satisfied, there is private healthcare - which thanks to the NHS, in order to compete the prices are usually reasonable.
I don't think private healthcare is all that bad. It's certainly more efficient and less time-consuming. I tried private psychotherapy for a while before our insurance ran out (the guy charged 400 pounds for an hour :zombiefuck:) and I have to say, I quite liked it. We were desperate and the NHS was taking fucking ages. One time when I was younger, it took the NHS 7 months to find me a psychotherapist. I would definitely recommend that aspect of private healthcare. They get things done :thumbup:
Private healthcare isnt a bad thing (unlike private education) because you are not massively disadvatanged in most cases for not having it. I am more curious as to how a psychotherapist managed to give you £400/hour benefit.
Well he did nearly manage to give me my BPD dx. Unfortunately the money ran out too soon so I only managed 3-4 sessions with him. He was obviously full of bs at times (like when he was apparently fascinated by what music I listen to) but then all psychotherapists are to a certain degree. The one I have now is fucking stupid ::)
Still, £1600 for a bipolar diagnosis seems a bit ridiculous - I reckon it could be done a lot more cheaply. I must be doing the wrong degree if you can earn £400 an hour as a shrink, though I could go into banking I guess (well if I could stand the people there anyway).
I visited a counsellor once (just to prove a point with my doctor) and it was such a waste of time - no idea how it helps people.
Not bipolar but Bordeline Personality Disorder :P It helps to have someone who's completely impartial to you, listen to your whining for a while. At least it helps me.
Apparently, in LA animal shrinks get thousands of dollars :orly:
Borderline Personality Disorder just means that the shrink really has no idea what is wrong with you except that you are messed up in the head somewhere.
At least he gave my fucked-up-ness a name :lol:
-
oh man yeah I hate it when people you're paying to help you sort your head out pretend to be interetsted in the music you listen to and try and talk to you about it. I really hate pointless conversations in person
I only had to see a psych one time to get my AS diagnosis.he diagnosed me with social anxiety disorder while i was there.
I dunno if I technically have an OCD diagnosis, but I've been on meds for it and seen a psych for it so pretty much
I seriously doubt whether most psychs who don't specialise in autism can really help people with AS. it never happens with me anyway. dunno
I wonder how much people who specialise in Autism help either. We should diagnose each other, would be a lot more effective.
-
the guy who diagnosed me with AS seemed to understand things much better
the usual ones might be good at what they do, but they do it the same way they would with a normal person. and I reckon that often doesn't help with us. the counselors and psychs i've seen haven't really understood AS at all
-
oh man yeah I hate it when people you're paying to help you sort your head out pretend to be interetsted in the music you listen to and try and talk to you about it. I really hate pointless conversations in person
I only had to see a psych one time to get my AS diagnosis.he diagnosed me with social anxiety disorder while i was there.
I dunno if I technically have an OCD diagnosis, but I've been on meds for it and seen a psych for it so pretty much
I seriously doubt whether most psychs who don't specialise in autism can really help people with AS. it never happens with me anyway. dunno
I wonder how much people who specialise in Autism help either. We should diagnose each other, would be a lot more effective.
You couldn't be more wrong.
-
oh man yeah I hate it when people you're paying to help you sort your head out pretend to be interetsted in the music you listen to and try and talk to you about it. I really hate pointless conversations in person
I only had to see a psych one time to get my AS diagnosis.he diagnosed me with social anxiety disorder while i was there.
I dunno if I technically have an OCD diagnosis, but I've been on meds for it and seen a psych for it so pretty much
I seriously doubt whether most psychs who don't specialise in autism can really help people with AS. it never happens with me anyway. dunno
I wonder how much people who specialise in Autism help either. We should diagnose each other, would be a lot more effective.
You couldn't be more wrong.
I'm not sure about that. Most shrinks I ever had just pointed out my difficulties, not my skills.
-
oh man yeah I hate it when people you're paying to help you sort your head out pretend to be interetsted in the music you listen to and try and talk to you about it. I really hate pointless conversations in person
I only had to see a psych one time to get my AS diagnosis.he diagnosed me with social anxiety disorder while i was there.
I dunno if I technically have an OCD diagnosis, but I've been on meds for it and seen a psych for it so pretty much
I seriously doubt whether most psychs who don't specialise in autism can really help people with AS. it never happens with me anyway. dunno
I wonder how much people who specialise in Autism help either. We should diagnose each other, would be a lot more effective.
You couldn't be more wrong.
I'm not sure about that. Most shrinks I ever had just pointed out my difficulties, not my skills.
Thing is, he wasn't talking about most shrinks, he was talking about autism specialists.
The thing is, you need a trained specialist to DX you properly in order to rule out something else. Hadron thinks that it's perfectly okay to DX yourself because he, like a lot of other people who self DX, think they know better than a trained professional.
-
oh man yeah I hate it when people you're paying to help you sort your head out pretend to be interetsted in the music you listen to and try and talk to you about it. I really hate pointless conversations in person
I only had to see a psych one time to get my AS diagnosis.he diagnosed me with social anxiety disorder while i was there.
I dunno if I technically have an OCD diagnosis, but I've been on meds for it and seen a psych for it so pretty much
I seriously doubt whether most psychs who don't specialise in autism can really help people with AS. it never happens with me anyway. dunno
I wonder how much people who specialise in Autism help either. We should diagnose each other, would be a lot more effective.
You couldn't be more wrong.
I'm not sure about that. Most shrinks I ever had just pointed out my difficulties, not my skills.
Thing is, he wasn't talking about most shrinks, he was talking about autism specialists.
The thing is, you need a trained specialist to DX you properly in order to rule out something else. Hadron thinks that it's perfectly okay to DX yourself because he, like a lot of other people who self DX, think they know better than a trained professional.
I'm sorry to say this but he might very well be right. I don't trust "specialists" even autism "specialists".
-
oh man yeah I hate it when people you're paying to help you sort your head out pretend to be interetsted in the music you listen to and try and talk to you about it. I really hate pointless conversations in person
I only had to see a psych one time to get my AS diagnosis.he diagnosed me with social anxiety disorder while i was there.
I dunno if I technically have an OCD diagnosis, but I've been on meds for it and seen a psych for it so pretty much
I seriously doubt whether most psychs who don't specialise in autism can really help people with AS. it never happens with me anyway. dunno
I wonder how much people who specialise in Autism help either. We should diagnose each other, would be a lot more effective.
You couldn't be more wrong.
I'm not sure about that. Most shrinks I ever had just pointed out my difficulties, not my skills.
Thing is, he wasn't talking about most shrinks, he was talking about autism specialists.
The thing is, you need a trained specialist to DX you properly in order to rule out something else. Hadron thinks that it's perfectly okay to DX yourself because he, like a lot of other people who self DX, think they know better than a trained professional.
I'm sorry to say this but he might very well be right. I don't trust "specialists" even autism "specialists".
That's because you are a paranoid fuckwit though. :zombiefuck:
-
:thumbdn:
[attachment deleted by admin]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
oh man yeah I hate it when people you're paying to help you sort your head out pretend to be interetsted in the music you listen to and try and talk to you about it. I really hate pointless conversations in person
I only had to see a psych one time to get my AS diagnosis.he diagnosed me with social anxiety disorder while i was there.
I dunno if I technically have an OCD diagnosis, but I've been on meds for it and seen a psych for it so pretty much
I seriously doubt whether most psychs who don't specialise in autism can really help people with AS. it never happens with me anyway. dunno
I wonder how much people who specialise in Autism help either. We should diagnose each other, would be a lot more effective.
You couldn't be more wrong.
I'm not sure about that. Most shrinks I ever had just pointed out my difficulties, not my skills.
Thing is, he wasn't talking about most shrinks, he was talking about autism specialists.
The thing is, you need a trained specialist to DX you properly in order to rule out something else. Hadron thinks that it's perfectly okay to DX yourself because he, like a lot of other people who self DX, think they know better than a trained professional.
Autism specialists are pretty up themselves and the amount of trouble some people go through to get diagnosed borders on the ridiculous. As for myself, I was diagnosed very young, when the criteria work better.
But suppose our juries (carefully selected and trained so they know the differences between anything similar) would be a lot more efficient than having to go to some arrogant psychologist. You forget that much of the "facts" on Autism are there for commercial reasons, making the integrity of psychologist in diagnosing us quite questionable in many cases.
-
Quite a leap to claim that self dx is more reliable, though.
-
In some ways it's getting harder to dx ASCs because as time goes on, the clinical and research communities are starting to realize just how BROAD the spectrum is and that it really isn't a discrete entity where one person is definitively autistic and the next person isn't. It's more like one end of a human bell curve, which is a continuum with no clear line of delineation between "is" and "isn't".
Nowadays when people starting debating what is and isn't particular to autism, what defines the conditions, I tend not to take part since behaviorally there's no all-or-nothing-at-all difference.
I do know I tend to get along better with people who are more towards the autistic side of the bell curve.
-
Quite a leap to claim that self dx is more reliable, though.
I think at an older age it might be - I am usually pretty quick to tell if someone is on the spectrum. Mind I may not catch everyone, but I have never been wrong when I say yes. The reason being is I have 20 years of experience, I know most of the ways people try to hide it and their reasons for doing so.
-
2 Sessions and $500AUD later and I had a DX.
And that was only 5 years ago.
Tell me again how all your paranoia is true?
If you think you are so good at spotting people on the spectrum, then why don't you get your qualifications and open your own practice. You'd be rich by now with your 20 years experience. :laugh:
-
Because I could make a lot more money by framing my diagnosis papers, renting a small office and then selling a cure for Autism. Very lucrative :P
Actually I would rather go into academia and do something useful - could look at technological aids research, which no one has bothered to do whilst they are all busy looking at curing us. As for paranoid - I prefer to be called a realist.
-
Quite a leap to claim that self dx is more reliable, though.
If I put it like this: The Cuckoo's Nest and the Millennium Trilogy are fictions, but what happens in them is reality, except that thing with Russian agents in the latter.
-
You both are living in a fantasy world of your own. I just hope it's one that makes you happy, unless you like being miserable.
-
AS exists alright, but at the same time 90% of "psychiatry" is a fraud and a ruler technique.
-
You both are living in a fantasy world of your own. I just hope it's one that makes you happy, unless you like being miserable.
Why don't you pick up a psychology journal and see how rigorous it is. Then look at the studies and compare to what they declare to be scientific fact. It is an absolute joke really - although there are some good studies, there are more awful ones.
-
But self DX and amateur DX are worse. I think it only hurts our cause and/or public image.
-
But self DX and amateur DX are worse. I think it only hurts our cause and/or public image.
Not at all - the problem at the minute is that nearly all decisions on Autism et al (and hence ourselves) are being made by relatives of those on the spectrum and the psychiatric "profession", along with the odd crank here and there.
However I don't suggest we offer to test each other, that would be brazen. Instead we set up an organisation which fights for causes which happen to benefit us, whilst deliberately recruiting those likely to be on the spectrum (obviously not making it explicit what we are doing, merely setting up the criteria and promotional material in a manner which nets us those people).
-
But self DX and amateur DX are worse. I think it only hurts our cause and/or public image.
Not at all - the problem at the minute is that nearly all decisions on Autism et al (and hence ourselves) are being made by relatives of those on the spectrum and the psychiatric "profession", along with the odd crank here and there.
However I don't suggest we offer to test each other, that would be brazen. Instead we set up an organisation which fights for causes which happen to benefit us, whilst deliberately recruiting those likely to be on the spectrum (obviously not making it explicit what we are doing, merely setting up the criteria and promotional material in a manner which nets us those people).
Totally agree. Blacks, Jews, gay people, etc have their own organisations for many things, so we should have it as well. :plus:
-
Isn't there already ASAN? I know over here we have our own chapter, ASAN_AU.
Although in those groups, you always get the crackpots of like that hang out at WP etc.
-
there are plenty of aspie groups and organisations
and i agree about relatives of people with ASDs having too much of an impact. whenever I read about AS or autism in the media, it's always parents of autistic kids, about autistic kids, about how many kids get autistm etc. what do they think autistic kids grow up to be?
also a lot of parents of AS kids seem to come up with a load of crap a lot of the time imo
obviously kids are important, i'm not disputing that. but it would make more sense to listen to people who actually have AS than to parents who have some weird ideas about their kids
-
Isn't there already ASAN? I know over here we have our own chapter, ASAN_AU.
Although in those groups, you always get the crackpots of like that hang out at WP etc.
Yeah, they are busy running around warning of the non-existent danger of a cure for Autism. As for having a useful impact on our lives though, they have done nothing at all.
-
Isn't there already ASAN? I know over here we have our own chapter, ASAN_AU.
Although in those groups, you always get the crackpots of like that hang out at WP etc.
Yeah, they are busy running around warning of the non-existent danger of a cure for Autism. As for having a useful impact on our lives though, they have done nothing at all.
:agreed:
-
there are plenty of aspie groups and organisations
and i agree about relatives of people with ASDs having too much of an impact. whenever I read about AS or autism in the media, it's always parents of autistic kids, about autistic kids, about how many kids get autistm etc. what do they think autistic kids grow up to be?
also a lot of parents of AS kids seem to come up with a load of crap a lot of the time imo
obviously kids are important, i'm not disputing that. but it would make more sense to listen to people who actually have AS than to parents who have some weird ideas about their kids
The problem with the aspie groups is they are not looking at how we can unite and help ourselves (what we really need!) - instead they look at the fringe obsessions.
Though the NAS we could easily get a lot of power within, if we bothered. I intend to stand as a candidate next year for their council - if we can get a lot of smart aspies to stand, then we can take control rather quickly. Having resources like that is when we can start to change things.
-
Explain these fringe obsessions and explain what you mean by helping ourselves, your interpretation of it that is.
-
Explain these fringe obsessions and explain what you mean by helping ourselves, your interpretation of it that is.
Fringe Obsessions - I mean those which whilst apparently being a massive part of the Autism rights movement, we get no benefit from campaigning for them. Examples include fighting a cure for Autism, competing to be the most "high functioning" / "low functioning", Amanda Baggs "this is my language", trying to make an Autistic Culture and so on. Whilst all those might provide an obsession to tick the days away, they make no impact towards improving our lives.
As for helping ourselves, the idea would be to look for and lobby for improvements and changes made to society, setting up a network in order to get around the nepotism and cronyism which runs our society, looking at technological innovations which would allow us to fit in more without changing ourselves (essentially rendering the social game irrelevant) and disrupting changes which occur to our detriment. This all could be wrapped up inside a social meritocracy movement relatively easily.
-
Explain these fringe obsessions and explain what you mean by helping ourselves, your interpretation of it that is.
Fringe Obsessions - I mean those which whilst apparently being a massive part of the Autism rights movement, we get no benefit from campaigning for them. Examples include fighting a cure for Autism, competing to be the most "high functioning" / "low functioning", Amanda Baggs "this is my language", trying to make an Autistic Culture and so on. Whilst all those might provide an obsession to tick the days away, they make no impact towards improving our lives.
As for helping ourselves, the idea would be to look for and lobby for improvements and changes made to society, setting up a network in order to get around the nepotism and cronyism which runs our society, looking at technological innovations which would allow us to fit in more without changing ourselves (essentially rendering the social game irrelevant) and disrupting changes which occur to our detriment. This all could be wrapped up inside a social meritocracy movement relatively easily.
In other words, it should be about your fringe obsession then? ::)
I don't see how that's any different.
-
Quite a leap to claim that self dx is more reliable, though.
I think at an older age it might be - I am usually pretty quick to tell if someone is on the spectrum. Mind I may not catch everyone, but I have never been wrong when I say yes. The reason being is I have 20 years of experience, I know most of the ways people try to hide it and their reasons for doing so.
Yes, you have a point, obviously. A lot of us are v good at spotting other aspies.
I was thinking more about the adolescent syndrome sufferers at WP, all of whom have dx'd themselves with AS. Most of them are wrong. Social ineptitude or a sense of not belonging does not equal autism spectrum disorder.
-
But self DX and amateur DX are worse. I think it only hurts our cause and/or public image.
Most self-dx'ers are wrong. Most amateur dx'ers in general, likewise. That said, I think Hadron's got a point in that some of us can often spot an aspie. It's not the same as actually dx'ing one, though, and he won't ever make any money from it because spotting one or two is very different from anything resembling an actual diagnosis.
The self-dx'ers definitely hurt whatever image we have left with the public.
-
Explain these fringe obsessions and explain what you mean by helping ourselves, your interpretation of it that is.
Fringe Obsessions - I mean those which whilst apparently being a massive part of the Autism rights movement, we get no benefit from campaigning for them. Examples include fighting a cure for Autism, competing to be the most "high functioning" / "low functioning", Amanda Baggs "this is my language", trying to make an Autistic Culture and so on. Whilst all those might provide an obsession to tick the days away, they make no impact towards improving our lives.
As for helping ourselves, the idea would be to look for and lobby for improvements and changes made to society, setting up a network in order to get around the nepotism and cronyism which runs our society, looking at technological innovations which would allow us to fit in more without changing ourselves (essentially rendering the social game irrelevant) and disrupting changes which occur to our detriment. This all could be wrapped up inside a social meritocracy movement relatively easily.
In other words, it should be about your fringe obsession then? ::)
I don't see how that's any different.
Key difference, I am about solving actual problems - the big one being that we are not afforded anything like the opportunities we would get if we were not "disabled". I am never going to ask that we get afforded a load of social jobs despite being not very good at socialising. What I am suggesting is that we do not get denied jobs that we could do with reasonable adjustments, and the same principle goes with opportunities. It is a real problem that only 15% of us are employed (excluding low functioning people here obviously). Though of course there are those of us whom are quite happy to continue sitting on their arses all their lives, I guess.
-
But self DX and amateur DX are worse. I think it only hurts our cause and/or public image.
Most self-dx'ers are wrong. Most amateur dx'ers in general, likewise. That said, I think Hadron's got a point in that some of us can often spot an aspie. It's not the same as actually dx'ing one, though, and he won't ever make any money from it because spotting one or two is very different from anything resembling an actual diagnosis.
The self-dx'ers definitely hurt whatever image we have left with the public.
I would say I am spotted more than a couple, though I have the advantage of being in an environment where I am likely to meet a lot of Aspies, not that I ever directly mention this to them. But I do agree that the WP self-diagnosers are a problem - though I think we have to get away from the idea merely raising awareness will somehow change things for us for the better. If anything, I suspect it is going to make our situation a lot worse, the general public are too thick to understand the intricacies, so we will end up with a round of inaccurate stereotypes, along with the expectations which go with them.
-
But would you reliably be able to dx someone who's not a student or part of that social setting? Say, someone past 30? Or, going the other way, would you be able to dx a six-year-old boy? There are a number of conditions that can (and should, because it's not--or at least should not--be an intellectual game) be considered. Making the wrong dx will harm that boy.
-
But would you reliably be able to dx someone who's not a student or part of that social setting? Say, someone past 30? Or, going the other way, would you be able to dx a six-year-old boy? There are a number of conditions that can (and should, because it's not--or at least should not--be an intellectual game) be considered. Making the wrong dx will harm that boy.
Well there was a girl at uni whom I strongly suspected was an Aspie (on meeting) and lo and behold her brother gets a diagnosis a while down the line, so I could if I did a meet the relatives. But there are cases that I have suspected. That said - I wouldn't dream of saying something unless I was absolutely sure.
-
i didnt realize...ok then
-
You do know that people with an abusive childhood can present the same as someone with aspergers. So how does your untrained eye deal with that fact?
-
You do know that people with an abusive childhood can present the same as someone with aspergers. So how does your untrained eye deal with that fact?
Your assuming I can't tell the difference.
-
You do know that people with an abusive childhood can present the same as someone with aspergers. So how does your untrained eye deal with that fact?
Your assuming I can't tell the difference.
No, I'm assuming you're arrogant :P
-
You do know that people with an abusive childhood can present the same as someone with aspergers. So how does your untrained eye deal with that fact?
Your assuming I can't tell the difference.
No, I'm assuming you're arrogant :P
I wish I was. Would make a really nice bubble to live in.
-
You do know that people with an abusive childhood can present the same as someone with aspergers. So how does your untrained eye deal with that fact?
Your assuming I can't tell the difference.
No, I'm assuming you're arrogant :P
I wish I was. Would make a really nice bubble to live in.
What is it they say about the most effective prison being the that the prisoner is not aware of?
-
You do know that people with an abusive childhood can present the same as someone with aspergers. So how does your untrained eye deal with that fact?
Your assuming I can't tell the difference.
No, I'm assuming you're arrogant :P
I wish I was. Would make a really nice bubble to live in.
What is it they say about the most effective prison being the that the prisoner is not aware of?
Oh true - but given society does not have that effect on us, we need a substitute of some form. Otherwise we could do, well, anything.
-
You do know that people with an abusive childhood can present the same as someone with aspergers. So how does your untrained eye deal with that fact?
Your assuming I can't tell the difference.
No, I'm assuming you're arrogant :P
I wish I was. Would make a really nice bubble to live in.
What is it they say about the most effective prison being the that the prisoner is not aware of?
Oh true - but given society does not have that effect on us, we need a substitute of some form. Otherwise we could do, well, anything.
Oh silly me, I forgot that we were supermen of the the future.
-
You do know that people with an abusive childhood can present the same as someone with aspergers. So how does your untrained eye deal with that fact?
Your assuming I can't tell the difference.
No, I'm assuming you're arrogant :P
I wish I was. Would make a really nice bubble to live in.
What is it they say about the most effective prison being the that the prisoner is not aware of?
Oh true - but given society does not have that effect on us, we need a substitute of some form. Otherwise we could do, well, anything.
Oh silly me, I forgot that we were supermen of the the future.
That was not what I meant at all - quit being facetious.
-
You do know that people with an abusive childhood can present the same as someone with aspergers. So how does your untrained eye deal with that fact?
Your assuming I can't tell the difference.
No, I'm assuming you're arrogant :P
I wish I was. Would make a really nice bubble to live in.
What is it they say about the most effective prison being the that the prisoner is not aware of?
Oh true - but given society does not have that effect on us, we need a substitute of some form. Otherwise we could do, well, anything.
Oh silly me, I forgot that we were supermen of the the future.
That was not what I meant at all - quit being facetious.
But you come up with the most laughable crap.
The thing is with you is that you are trapped by your own arrogance of thinking you have all the answers and know everything already.
-
You do know that people with an abusive childhood can present the same as someone with aspergers. So how does your untrained eye deal with that fact?
Your assuming I can't tell the difference.
No, I'm assuming you're arrogant :P
I wish I was. Would make a really nice bubble to live in.
What is it they say about the most effective prison being the that the prisoner is not aware of?
Oh true - but given society does not have that effect on us, we need a substitute of some form. Otherwise we could do, well, anything.
Oh silly me, I forgot that we were supermen of the the future.
That was not what I meant at all - quit being facetious.
But you come up with the most laughable crap.
The thing is with you is that you are trapped by your own arrogance of thinking you have all the answers and know everything already.
I am not trapped at all - just have a habit of thinking ahead so I have multiple ways out of everything. And yes, I may well take advantage of the fact that people are bound to their system and their rules. Doesn't at all make me arrogant.
-
You do know that people with an abusive childhood can present the same as someone with aspergers. So how does your untrained eye deal with that fact?
Your assuming I can't tell the difference.
No, I'm assuming you're arrogant :P
I wish I was. Would make a really nice bubble to live in.
What is it they say about the most effective prison being the that the prisoner is not aware of?
Oh true - but given society does not have that effect on us, we need a substitute of some form. Otherwise we could do, well, anything.
Oh silly me, I forgot that we were supermen of the the future.
That was not what I meant at all - quit being facetious.
But you come up with the most laughable crap.
The thing is with you is that you are trapped by your own arrogance of thinking you have all the answers and know everything already.
I am not trapped at all - just have a habit of thinking ahead so I have multiple ways out of everything. And yes, I may well take advantage of the fact that people are bound to their system and their rules. Doesn't at all make me arrogant.
::)
-
Most people obey the rules no matter how absurd and unjust they might be.
-
Most people obey the rules no matter how absurd and unjust they might be.
It's a secret handshake.