PDA

View Full Version : I hate Americans/guns etc sponge (for absorbing hatred)


Norman Deplume
14th Aug 2016, 16:34
Ok guys, I enjoy reading Jet Blast there is a lot of informed opinion on here, I like reading it, even if I don't share the same point of view. I'm always keen to learn from others.

The reason I am starting this thread/post or whatever it's called is for two reasons.

1) I'm in the pub.

2) I find it curious how, whatever the subject matter it degenerates into slagging off our American Cousins before the second page. And then the usual gun blah blah gun cultue blah, blah, blah...,snooze.....tedious!!!

Also there seem to be a few keyboard warriors who can't concede a point and admit "ok, fair point mate!" I'm sure if we all met in person it would be interesting fun., great conversation for sure.

So this thread is the internet version of the car park at the back of the pub.

Be rude to each other, wave your handbags in the air. Let the sponge soak up your irrational misguided rage. Then get on with transmitting your interesting knowledge.

Slag off the Americans (who are some of the most polite, well mannered people I have ever had the privilege of meeting) but do it here please. And leave the other subjects for discussing that subject alone please.


Fighting and rudeness here, other threads for discussing interesting stuff please ladies and gentlemen.
:)

Not that it's my business to make requests. I'm just saying. Awaiting incoming from 4 or 5 likely suspects.

SASless
14th Aug 2016, 16:44
This will be a very short Thread I think!

Norman Deplume
14th Aug 2016, 16:46
This will be a very short Thread I think!

I blame the Americans and their gun culture.....not.


Do you see my point though Mr SASless?

UniFoxOs
14th Aug 2016, 18:07
Slag off the Americans (who are some of the most polite, well mannered people I have ever had the privilege of meeting)

Unless you have the misfortune to meet them on holiday in an all-inclusive resort in the Bahamas.

747 jock
14th Aug 2016, 18:09
The reason I am starting this thread/post or whatever it's called is for two reasons.

1) I'm in the pub.

I remember the days when people used to go to the pub to interact socially in a face to face situation rather than sitting at a table or the bar playing on a smartphone or tablet all the time.

Gertrude the Wombat
14th Aug 2016, 18:23
Unless you have the misfortune to meet them on holiday in an all-inclusive resort in the Bahamas.
I've seen some (Americans on holiday) through the gates of all-inclusive resorts in Jamaica.


But I never had the misfortune to actually meet them, because what I knew, and they didn't, was that the armed guards on the gates were to keep the inmates inside the prison camps, not to keep the locals out!

ExXB
14th Aug 2016, 20:18
Switzerland has the highest gun violence in Europe. Nothing like the US, but the availability of guns here, makes it a very sad story

Too many people here turn to the evening news to provide them with the wrong answers to their problems.

It's not America that I hate, but America's gun culture. And ours.

Blues&twos
14th Aug 2016, 20:29
I don't have a problem with Americans. But I do have an ongoing strong dislike of four specific Germans who took ALL of the tomatoes from a communal packed lunch-making area in Iceland when we were camping there in 1992. And there isn't a thread for that sort of thing. Yet.

charliegolf
14th Aug 2016, 20:37
I really do like Americans, but unless they start eating less, I'll never be able to eat a whole one!

CG

(IT'S BANTER he shouts!)

SARF
14th Aug 2016, 20:46
I love the yanks.. Americaland is like Great Britain..
But bigger and with proper weather .. And they don't shit their pants when a large cat escapes from a zoo ... They can also put more naval ships to sea then the rest of the world put together and actually fill them up with shells, missiles planes and marines.
They have invented some of the finest hangover foods known to man, despite being crap at drinking . As a rule their manners put the Brits to shame And they say the word herb In an incredibly amusing fashion

cavortingcheetah
14th Aug 2016, 21:00
But it's all just the same now as it was during the Indian Wars in the American West.
Way back then the Americans had guns and the Indians had bows and arrows. Then the Indian discovered that an American with a Winchester could kill more of him than he could them, using only his little flint arrow heads. So the Indian bought Winchesters from the Americans, a sort of status quo was briefly initiated and then the American introduced disease and booze to the Indian and that left the jolly redskin either dead or in the reservation.
Today the Americans still have the guns while the immigrants have the equivalent of bows and arrows. Pretty soon someone's going to work out that it's not politically correct to use gunfire enfilade against knives, hatchets and table legs. What should historically happen next then is that the immigrants should be put into reservations while booze and disease are introduced shortly thereafter, through third person intermediaries, just like Airbus and the bribery scandal brewing. That last connection is mentioned in order to keep an aviation content going in the thread.
Personally, I like guns, own several, although not necessarily in Britain and think the USA is the greatest place on earth. I haven't been to Sangatte recently but I'm certain that good housekeeping lessons could be learnt from such a place. Pass the Piper Nigrum please; my Bloody Mary needs spicing up.

John Hill
14th Aug 2016, 21:02
Lots of very 'nice' people in the US of A but it is such a shame that none of them have taken political office and none of them work at LAX.

For some reason they (Americans) seem to figure highly in the listings at www.bastardsIhavemetonline.org.

Captain Dart
14th Aug 2016, 22:42
Not just ' 'erbs' I find amusing. An American sailor will moor his ding-hee to the boo-ey.

They build damn fine 'airplanes', though.

SASless
14th Aug 2016, 22:57
We all should take a Lesson from the American Indian....uncontrolled imigration of a different culture only brings problems!

John Hill
14th Aug 2016, 23:27
I guess those American Indians were not really 'American' enough to be protected by the sacred documents passed down from the Founding Fathers.

West Coast
14th Aug 2016, 23:35
Yup, the Maori and the American Indian learned similar lessons about white folk.

salad-dodger
14th Aug 2016, 23:45
I've seen some (Americans on holiday) through the gates of all-inclusive resorts in Jamaica.

But I never had the misfortune to actually meet them, because what I knew, and they didn't, was that the armed guards on the gates were to keep the inmates inside the prison camps, not to keep the locals out!
You really are a smug be** end aren't you!

John Hill
14th Aug 2016, 23:52
Yup, the Maori and the American Indian learned similar lessons about white folk.

I am sure you are quite an authority on race relations in NZ but WTF does that have to do with this topic?

cavortingcheetah
14th Aug 2016, 23:54
Is there a remote possibility that the local population shunned hard work thus requiring the import of overseas or foreign labour?

This record from Jamestown in Virginia sheds some light upon a problem that has recently caused some considerable vituperative outpourings in Britain and elsewhere in the white world.

Sacred documents becomes more like a bill of lading.

1619
Arrival of "20 and odd" Africans in late August 1619.

TWT
15th Aug 2016, 00:12
Sorry,but I see no point to this thread,other than reinforcing negative stereotypes.In my experience, you cannot make any assumptions about individuals you meet anywhere in the world prior to finding out what they're really like.In this case,putting a group of people numbering more than 300 million into the same 'bag' is unfair.As for being personally responsible for what our governments get up to,that's not fair either.

P.S. I worked with a guy,born and bred in France (my client) outside of France, who absolutely hated French people and anything to do with France.Not what I expected at all.

I now work with a German guy who isn't fond of Germany,has moved almost as far as possible away from Germany as is possible, and is an Anglophile :)
nnnn
nnnn
nnnn

tartare
15th Aug 2016, 00:46
Well, I suppose if we hate Americans - we should give Orville and Wilbur back their invention.
Or at the very least, return all those instruments, bomb-sights and other technical innovations that helped beat those beastly krauts.
Oh, and the bomb as well speaking of breakthroughs.
Of course we gave them that particular idea courtesy of Mr Tizard and his trunk; radar and that mad chap Whittle's bizarre new engine to name two more.
And we did come up with Colossus first didn't we, even if it was largely due to that degenerate Turing.
But then, bloody cousins; they have this habit of taking the germ of an idea and making it really, really successful.
I mean, really. How much imagine does it take to grab a bleeding Nazi at the end of the show, take him and his friends back home and end up putting a man on the moon.
Show offs.
No, best we stick with artisan scale manufacturing, crap cars, trunk telephone exchanges and bad food.

Always liked a good airplane.
And a good hand cannon too...

FLCH
15th Aug 2016, 00:59
I am sure you are quite an authority on race relations in NZ but WTF does that have to do with this topic?


Goodness John, does the supression of the white Europeans on the Maori people strike a nerve ? Shame on them Cowboys against the Indians !

:)

John Hill
15th Aug 2016, 01:11
Oh yes, there is plenty to regret concerning the 19th century history of NZ but if you knew anything about the subject you would know what has been done in recent decades.

John Hill
15th Aug 2016, 01:14
Tartare, about that invention of Orville and Wilbur, have you ever wondered why the major components of aeroplanes bear French names?

FLCH
15th Aug 2016, 01:21
Well I will admit John, I'm not very informed about the Maori struggle, but I do know from having relatives there in NZ there's still resentment about the Europeans coming in and taking over their country.

I'm not in a position to judge by far, all I have is opinions.....theirs as well as yours should be respected and considered. I just find your opinions of the US where I live "different" is all.

Thank God we all still have a right to a view, at least on these boards.

vapilot2004
15th Aug 2016, 02:14
Is there a remote possibility that the local population shunned hard work thus requiring the import of overseas or foreign labour?

This record from Jamestown in Virginia sheds some light upon a problem that has recently caused some considerable vituperative outpourings in Britain and elsewhere in the white world.


Did you know America was founded by second sons? In British aristocracy (and much of Europe), the first born son got everything - the estate, the money, and was the holder of the family name and crest.

Second sons, in seeking to make their own mark on the world, clear of their older siblings, came to America seeking a new life, riches independent of their kin back home, and to build their own empires.

galaxy flyer
15th Aug 2016, 03:34
ExXB,

Apprently, not just gun violence in Suisse, knives and fire, too.

GF

tartare
15th Aug 2016, 05:58
Et c'est vrai John.
But simultaneous roll and yaw control?
Practical heavier than air powered flight?
The title still goes to the cousins - 17 December 1903.
It's not a De Havilland 787, or a Dassault 787 is it?
Even if it is made in different parts of the world.
Or a Gloster Joint Strike Fighter... :E

John Hill
15th Aug 2016, 06:56
Yeabut it was Blériot who advanced the science and pioneered the most successful configuration of all the tractor monoplane and he did it while the cuzzies were doing what cuzzies are so go at and that was fighting for a legal monopoly of the whole industry.

megan
15th Aug 2016, 07:12
Did you know America was founded by second sons? In British aristocracy (and much of Europe), the first born son got everything - the estate, the money, and was the holder of the family name and crest.

Second sons, in seeking to make their own mark on the world, clear of their older siblings, came to America seeking a new life, riches independent of their kin back home, and to build their own empires. The Pilgrim saga began with a group of religious dissidents from Scrooby, England, who believed it was necessary to separate from the Church of England. Persecuted in England, these "Separatists" moved to Holland in 1607/1608 and settled in Leiden, Holland. After a decade in Leiden, the low wages, the danger of renewed war with Spain, and concern for their children's future led them to seek another solution. The Leiden Separatist community decided to relocate to America. They sailed in the "Speedwell" from Delftshaven to meet the "Mayflower" Separatists in Southampton. After departure the Speedwell leaked so badly that both ships turned back to England, putting in first at Dartmouth and then at Plymouth. Finally, on September 16, 1620, the Mayflower set sail, alone, for America.

vapilot2004
15th Aug 2016, 07:19
Interesting bit of information, M. Speedwell madam doesn't have the same ring to it.

I was referring to the colonies that began in Virginia, where many of the earliest settlers were indeed second sons who went on to create their own aristocracies in the American South and along the Eastern Seaboard.

Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in America, was at first, a disaster as they were wholly unprepared for the weather, suffered from a lack of food gathering skills, and chose what would turn out to be an extremely poor site to inhabit in the island that became known as Jamestown. Later, the second sons would follow.

An excerpt from the Virginia Company Charter:

Lastly and chiefly the way to prosper and achieve good success is to make yourselves all of one mind for the good of your country and your own, and to serve and fear God the giver of all goodness, for every plantation which our father hath not planted shall be rooted out.

Chesty Morgan
15th Aug 2016, 09:15
You really are a smug be** end aren't you!

Since when has 'bell' been a naughty word?

tartare
15th Aug 2016, 09:46
Back on thread - am remembering the morning after 911.
I was on the Central line in London on the way to work.
The atmosphere was best described as one of palpable shock.
You could physically sense it - people were just sitting there like stunned mullets, reading papers, staring into the distance.
Some feral little scr0te of a kid (of the type only found in London - and if you've lived there you'll know what I mean) was kicking the door as we approached White City - just for the hell of it.
A mild mannered clerk type looked up from his paper and snarled at the kid "Cut it out!"
There was an incredible anger in his voice.
The kid did.
I thought to myself - how on earth could someone visit something like those attacks on the US.
For every stupid dumb thing they've given us - they've given us so much more that's positive.
I've always enjoyed visiting the place - and travelling out of LA and NYC to Oklahoma, Maine, Virginia, Illinois, Texas.
Can't make head or tail of an electoral college.
Or the second amendment - much as I like my firearms, weapons and armed forces.
But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Except for Donald Trump.
He's not an American.
He's just an idiot.

Tankertrashnav
15th Aug 2016, 09:53
P.S. I worked with a guy,born and bred in France (my client) outside of France, who absolutely hated French people and anything to do with France.Not what I expected at all.

I now work with a German guy who isn't fond of Germany,has moved almost as far as possible away from Germany as is possible, and is an Anglophile

Very similar phenomenon here - lots of English people who affect to despise all things English (not British note, the Scots, Welsh and Irish all love their countries) It's shown by a contempt for English culture and an uncritical espousal of continental culture (French fashions, Italian food, German engineering etc). Unfortunately those same types also tend to be contemptuous of all things American.

Personally I love lots of things about the USA - I just wish they still made "proper" American cars instead of ugly SUVs and Japanese knock-offs :(

ExXB
15th Aug 2016, 10:37
ExXB,

Apprently, not just gun violence in Suisse, knives and fire, too.

GF

Yes, thank goodness he didn't have a gun.

vapilot2004
15th Aug 2016, 11:04
But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Except for Donald Trump.
He's not an American.
He's just an idiot.

Tartare, I ask this as an American, Thoughts on a modern Western democracy that nominates somebody like Trump?

Clearly some ting is wong. -in my best Trumpesque anti-_______ voice

DirtyProp
15th Aug 2016, 11:09
Personally I love lots of things about the USA - I just wish they still made "proper" American cars instead of ugly SUVs and Japanese knock-offs :(
That's why we gave them FIAT - to tank their auto industry for good.
:E

Seldomfitforpurpose
15th Aug 2016, 11:11
Or Hilary, 300 million plus people and the best 2 choices you can come up with for the most powerful job in the world are that pair.......

sitigeltfel
15th Aug 2016, 11:13
I hate celery....

....let the vitriol flow :p

cavortingcheetah
15th Aug 2016, 11:14
A modern western democracy that nominates Trump signally illustrates the triumph of modern western democracy. However, the nomination demonstrates the argument that democracy should retain or reinstate elements of its more classical inheritance, that only tax payers and land owners should be entitled to vote.
Such a sensible proposal would most assuredly give rise to a vast upswelling of hatred and abuse on the part of those who expect to be able determine who administers the assets of society without playing a constructive part in the creation of the physical wealth used to make those payments.

tartare
15th Aug 2016, 11:25
VA - my thoughts would be this.
Something is wrong - you are correct.
My view is that what the average American is struggling to grasp is that the entire neoliberal economic agenda they've grown up with over the last 30-40 years is wrong.
It doesn't work.
Those Chicago school economists?
Muppets.
Greenspan has admitted he was wrong.
The IMF has admitted it doesn't work.
If you privatise everything - all you get is naked pursuit of profit and a bowl of shit soup for the average punter.
They are angry - and looking for a solution.
There's no-one smart enough to articulate a third way - yet.
So they turn to an idiot like Trump, or Pauline Hanson here in Australia - a demagogue.
Neoliberalism is very appealing - because it appeals to a naive reading of Darwinism - strongest wins; weakest dies.
But life isn't that simple.
I find it highly amusing when all those highly paid economists and titans of industry talk about sub-optimal growth for the next 10 years - and how the arsenal of economic tools to address the issue - is empty.
Look in the mirror fools.
You've scared an entire generation who will never trust a bank or a financial services organisation again.
They're paying down debt and refusing to spend.
I'm centre right - and I'm one of them - not a socialist by any means - but it's patently obvious to me the economic situation the US and OECD economies are in - is unprecedented.
This time - it really is different.
Hopefully politicians will have got their heads around this issue by the time my children are old enough to work.
I am encouraging my son to join the armed forces - have a degree paid for - hoping that by the time he is out, some sort of new economic paradigm may have begun to emerge.
I've told him that if he really wants to be at the forefront of military aviation - he'll have to come to your country.
Rant over - now I'll tell you what I really think...!
God bless America.

vapilot2004
15th Aug 2016, 11:37
However, the nomination demonstrates the argument that democracy should retain or reinstate elements of its more classical inheritance, that only tax payers and land owners should be entitled to vote.

This is counter to core of what it is to be an American, unless we're talking 1950.

If a Trump is the result of a supposedly open primary, I prefer the old system of back room deals (Clinton?) producing the nominees for president as opposed to allowing such a vital process of our democracy to be hijacked by a flawed primary system with its poorly educated voters, whether they own their (mobile?) home lot or not.

cavortingcheetah
15th Aug 2016, 11:42
Yes, I take the point about mobile homes in the bayou.

vapilot2004
15th Aug 2016, 11:51
There's no-one smart enough to articulate a third way - yet.


I like your thinking regarding the future, Tartare. The smart people are there, but have not been invited to the big boys' table yet - perhaps in fear more sense may come forth than the reliable seats that happily promote the status quo have been spewing for a century.

On banking, should we also revisit the decision of moving to a fiat money system - or can financial markets be progressive and safe at the same time?

Neoliberalism is very appealing - because it appeals to a naive reading of Darwinism - strongest wins; weakest dies.
But life isn't that simple.

Brilliant! Too bad such a (very) human reading on modern society is completely lost on a far too large percentage of voting Americans.

Good choice for the son. :ok: Several in my family have taken the same route and they have done well and are happy.

SASless
15th Aug 2016, 12:01
Ah....the good ship "Speedwell".....whose Master was my direct Ancester who settled in Perquimmans County, North Carolina and was the start of it all for my Line!

Lonewolf_50
15th Aug 2016, 13:28
Should someone ask the mods to merge the last five "oh my, it's a gun in America" threads into this one?

TWT
15th Aug 2016, 13:33
Why not ? May as well have all the bile in one place :)

Hempy
15th Aug 2016, 14:07
I think that was the opinion of the OP.

Unfortunately he/she is of the opinion that most people have enough time in their day to go wading through every thread on PPRuNe.

Luxury!

Ancient Observer
15th Aug 2016, 14:34
By and large, I like America and Americans. I do not like guns.

However, Europeans are a bit too quick to complain about the gun stuff. That's because they genuinely do not understand the cultural assumptions and norms that underlie the gun thing.
My typing is not good enough to describe it here.

ExXB
15th Aug 2016, 16:15
From USA today:

Despite the Transportation Security Administration’s repeated reminders that “firearms, ammunition, firearm parts, and realistic replicas of firearms are prohibited from carry-on baggage,” last week travelers were found with a record-breaking number of guns at airport checkpoints.

From Aug. 5 to 11, TSA officers found 78 firearms in carry-on bags at U.S. airports.

That breaks a previous record set in May 2016, when 74 firearms were discovered at airport checkpoints, and one set a month earlier, in April 2016, when 73 firearms were found.

Of the 78 firearms found in carry-on bags last week, 68 were loaded and 21 had a round chambered.

How can these 'forgetful' people be allowed to own and carry lethal weapons?

oicur12.again
15th Aug 2016, 16:51
good post tartare,

The scam that is fractional reserve banking and a debt based consumer economy is going to run out of steam eventually and then where do we turn?

The printers at the IMF are getting ready to start pumping out SDR's.

Trump/Clinton and the political establishment simply offer simple short term solutions to problems that are generations old. The deindustrialization of the west has taken decades and will not be fixed in a 4 year term of office.

We are in a world of s%&*

alwayzinit
15th Aug 2016, 17:05
Love him or hate him "The Donald" has reconnected millions of previously disinterested and (maybe) disenfranchised eligible voters with the fact that every vote counts. His running has done the same for his opponents.
Personally I only want as many as possible to vote, it may not be perfect but it is currently the best system tried so far.

Lonewolf_50
15th Aug 2016, 19:23
How can these 'forgetful' people be allowed to own and carry lethal weapons? Until you understand rights as Americans do, you cannot understand the answer. Go back about 20 years, and the head coach of the Dallas Cowboys (that famous football team, this is before 9-11 and all of the nonsense it has brought with it in terms of alleged security) Barry Switzer forgot to remove a revolver form his bag. Embarrassed? Yes. A security threat? No. But that's why there's a check. It acts as a filter. He was arrested, charged, and he had to pay a fine. PRO FOOTBALL
Switzer Arrested on Gun Charge (http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/05/sports/switzer-arrested-on-gun-charge.html)
Published: August 5, 1997

It had been a quiet training camp for the Dallas Cowboys so far this summer, but it seems that no matter how hard they try to clean up their image, someone on the team ends up in trouble. This time, surprisingly, it was their coach. Barry Switzer was arrested yesterday morning after a loaded .38-caliber revolver was found in his carry-on baggage at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport.
------
A spokeswoman for the Dallas airport, Angel Biasatti, said security personnel confiscated the weapon and that Switzer was detained for almost two hours before being released on his own recognizance.

The final result
Switzer Pleads Guilty In Gun Case (http://articles.philly.com/1997-12-03/sports/25555044_1_coffey-misdemeanor-gun-charge-barry-switzer)

Dallas Cowboys coach Barry Switzer, who was arrested last summer carrying a loaded pistol in his luggage at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor gun charge yesterday in Fort Worth.
Switzer was fined $3,500 and was given deferred adjudication, meaning if he completes probation successfully the charge will be erased from his record. He also agreed in a plea agreement to serve 80 hours of public service as a condition of his probation.
Carrying a handgun without a permit is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine.

ExXB
15th Aug 2016, 19:39
Lone wolf, please explain to me how anyone can forget they are carrying a lethal weapon?

West Coast
15th Aug 2016, 21:00
For pilots, using the same case to carry the weapon to the range as they use to fly with. I bought a separate one for shooting than I have when on a trip. Different color and shape.

Lonewolf_50
15th Aug 2016, 22:30
Lone wolf, please explain to me how anyone can forget they are carrying a lethal weapon? He wasn't carrying it on his person. I am not obliged to explain to you what did or didn't go through Barry Switzer's mind as he packed his bag that day. It is possible that he had changed habit patterns, and was using a bag he didn't usually use for air travel on that particular day, but that's a wild guess. Since I handle my firearms more the way West Coast describes, it's something beyond my experience.

SASless
16th Aug 2016, 01:20
SFFP..... stupidity is not a monopoly held by Americans.

God knows we have seen sufficient examples of that over the Years right here at JB.

tartare
16th Aug 2016, 01:25
Without wanting to be seen as judging a culture which I am not a part of - at a purely philosophical level, logic would suggest that a compromise would be to restrict the possession of military style large calibre, semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons to the military.
Let people have a handgun.
Does John Doe really need an AR-15 or a Barrett?
While that might not address the overall level of gun violence, it might at least mitigate some of the more egregious mass shootings.
But then - I suppose once you restrict ownership of certain classes of weapons to the military - that immediately taps into the visceral fears of being unable to protect oneself against a rogue government.
And military long guns are just the thin end of the wedge...

galaxy flyer
16th Aug 2016, 01:57
Does John Doe really need an AR-15 or a Barrett?

They do if they compete in any of hundreds, if not thousands, of 3-gun comps; 1,000, 1,500 and 2,000 yard target comps held across 3,000 miles of the US annually. We have black powder comps, cowboy action shoots, horseback target shots, you name it, we shoot it. There is even a magazine titled, Garden and Guns.

GF

2Bad2Sad
16th Aug 2016, 03:15
When ones here refer to American Indians should be said as native American.
Not the New Delhi ones.
New Delhi 3rd world low life types buying up all the liquor stores and gas stations here.
Within weeks pumps don't work.
Raping all with prices.
They consider Debit cards same as credit and charge higher prices for gasoline.
I avoid any indian owned gas stations and liquor stores as many do also.
There prices in the liquor stores is very high compared to real American owned stores.
Typical 3rd world Indian new Deli types trash in USA now.
Even when you walk in the store to complain their English is very bad.
Obamas world, watch this go very bad soon.
This is why Trump even made it to the nomination, will get worse from here.

Lonewolf_50
16th Aug 2016, 03:17
And military long guns are just the thin end of the wedge... No sir, I suspect you do not understand the culture.

The thin end of the wedge is putting up with a corrupt government eroding Constitutional rights. They have long since gone far enough. The thin end of the wedge began with the head tax in 1913 ... ;)

vapilot2004
16th Aug 2016, 03:21
I wonder how many (i.e. what proportion) of gun owners are church goers and how that compares with the rest of the US population.

There are religious, racial, and political divides when it comes to guns in America, John.

6 in 10 white bible thumpers live in a household that has at least one firearm, while 6 in 10 Catholics and non-religious citizens' are for stronger gun laws. Flip it (4 in 10) and we have white Evangelical's position against gun control.

1 in 3 white households have at least one firearm while only 1 in 5 non-white households are packing heat. 2 out of 5 Conservatives have a gun while fewer than 1 in 6 Liberals do.

We would know a lot more about gun crimes if Republicans in Congress would rescind their ignorant legislation that bars scientific study of gun violence by the most powerful US agency allied with American's health, the CDC.

cavortingcheetah
16th Aug 2016, 03:31
That sad chappie:

If you pretend to be British and ask them what regiment their fathers served in you usually elicitsa degree of respectful cooperation from those who are at best naught but Sudra who have escaped for an instant.
A vote for Trump would probably lead to an evacuation that would relegate these people to the level of Untouchable, which of course, is what most of them are.

tartare
16th Aug 2016, 03:45
GF - point taken - and not that the M82 has been implicated in any mass shootings.
Interesting that the record for the longest accurate hit on a target (so to speak) is held by a .338 cal Accuracy International.


Lone - I suspect you are right. :)

2Bad2Sad
16th Aug 2016, 03:54
Religion give us all a break here.
How about location and color.
Some idiot in Milwaukee pulled over for traffic stop, many times convicted felony one not allowed to own gun pointed his firearm at police with 23 rounds available.
Police shot him well I wonder why, Anyone here expect a different result?
Now the city is in riots!
See how upside down this is?
With the exception of Dylan Ruth which even whites hate and say did wrong how can anyone make these statements.
How many shot in Chicago last weekend from gangs and felons that are not even allowed under law to own guns?
Bet they did not buy from gun store along with background checks.
Gun was stolen.
Dont see religion involved anywhere here.

John Hill
16th Aug 2016, 04:09
vapilot2004, so it seems the white, Protestant households are where the majority of guns can be found. This is interesting, not because they are Protestants but because they are religious and followers of religions are by definition followers of dogma and dogma as we know is a set of beliefs that members of the the religion must not question or doubt.

That explains why attempts to debate gun ownership are doomed to frustration and failure.

vapilot2004
16th Aug 2016, 04:18
Very good read of the facts, John.

It is also interesting to note that the group that forms the core of the Republican party, evangelical Christians, are also anti-health care, anti-poverty assistance, and anti-immigrant - all three stances clearly go against the biblical teachings of their invisible friend.

obgraham
16th Aug 2016, 04:19
John it seems largely those outside the USA who wish to "debate gun ownership" in America. There is no such debate here.

So we really don't much care.

vapilot2004
16th Aug 2016, 04:25
http://i68.tinypic.com/jfk8d3.png

John Hill
16th Aug 2016, 04:47
John it seems largely those outside the USA who wish to "debate gun ownership" in America. There is no such debate here.

So we really don't much care.

No of course not, that is exactly what I said about followers of dogma.

Robert Cooper
16th Aug 2016, 06:39
According to the latest ATF statistics, gun ownership demographics are:
White 37%, Black 33%, Other 32%
Republican 49%, Democrats 38%

religion etc seems to have not much to do with it.

underfire
16th Aug 2016, 06:57
https://scontent.fbne1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13920665_909942595803236_8033817902349390337_n.jpg?oh=c5f68d f6c91378c40d2bfaeefff0aad0&oe=58497578

Seldomfitforpurpose
16th Aug 2016, 07:10
SFFP..... stupidity is not a monopoly held by Americans.


I never implied it was but apparently even suggesting it is now a JB crime :p

underfire
16th Aug 2016, 07:11
Look what happened in the UK

https://highheelsandhandguns.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/69d5c-gunownershipviolentcrimeeng.gif?w=640

http://www.gunfacts.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-U.K.-Violent-Crime-and-Firearm-Ownership-Rates-Before-and-After-1997.png

and of course, Australia...

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/561817dbbd86ef195c8b5a7f/image.jpg

vapilot2004
16th Aug 2016, 07:15
M. Cooper: ATF does not track religious affiliations, nor do they break out detailed political demographics.

In fact, ATF has been legislatively banned from compiling and releasing full statistics on gun ownership and dealers by a Republican law rider passed in 2003. The same party passed laws forbidding the study of gun violence by both the NIH and the CDC - two federal agencies whose business is protecting American's health.

vapilot2004
16th Aug 2016, 07:34
Look what happened in the UK.

What the NRA-supporting "Gunfacts.info" chart (which is misleading - see below) fails to show is gun deaths have decreased since the ban was enacted. Rates per 100,000 have halved since the broader Firearms law was enacted by parliament.

A more reliable source of information, the Home Office, provides the following:
http://i67.tinypic.com/11qo3m9.png

Axerock
16th Aug 2016, 08:18
Just for a laugh.

There is quite a cool show in Australia called "Gruen" all about advertising.
Each episode they get two Ad Agencies to create an add to sell the unsellable. In the past, they had adds for promoting child labor, selling whale meat products, invade New Zealand, bring back the plastic bags etc.

Last week the pitch was to get USA to hand in their guns. The two adds are on youtube. Watch and enjoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTBUYn9HHc4

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJRGdcuu17g

obgraham
16th Aug 2016, 08:44
"The International Alliance for Gun Control"

I like it. Does ISIL?

vapilot2004
16th Aug 2016, 08:51
Brilliantly funny Axelrock. Cheers for that.

I like it. Does ISIL?

I know they like the fact that an American born citizen of (obviously) questionable mental state, can purchase any number of assault style weapons, easily, and legally, no background checks, no ID required, in preparation for a cowardly Daesh massacre at any time. They can thank most Republicans, and more than a few spineless moderates for kow-towing to the NRA for the "freedom".

underfire
16th Aug 2016, 09:56
Rates per 100,000 have halved since the broader Firearms law was enacted by parliament.

Look at the graph and your statement.

Since guns were illegal, they rate dropped from 516 to 226, or less than half, right? Fantastic! Right!

Look at REALITY. Guns are illegal, and went from 516 in 1996 to 226 in 2012. There are still 226 deaths from guns, 16 YEARS after they have been illegal?

Reality check.

vapilot2004
16th Aug 2016, 10:07
Obviously criminals failed to turn in their guns. :rolleyes:

The fact remains, the UK is in a better state today with regard to gun deaths than it was a scant few decades ago, thanks to responsible legislation. Anyone that begs to differ is blowing (gun?) smoke.

david1300
16th Aug 2016, 11:40
Not just ' 'erbs' I find amusing. An American sailor will moor his ding-hee to the boo-ey.

They build damn fine 'airplanes', though.

And don't get your US fanny confused with your English or Australian fanny :p;):ouch:

Ascend Charlie
16th Aug 2016, 11:45
Underfire says:
Look at REALITY. Guns are illegal, and went from 516 in 1996 to 226 in 2012. There are still 226 deaths from guns, 16 YEARS after they have been illegal?

Right, so 226 deaths out of our 20million is a rate of .00001, which would mean that the US with 10 times the population would have a total of 2,226 per year. But that is just the number you guys killed per month, so your stats are looking a bit sick.

Seldomfitforpurpose
16th Aug 2016, 11:59
A popular American term is never bring a knife to a gun fight, which could just as easily read never bring UK or Aus Gun death stats to a US Gun thread, always going to end in embarrassment....

SASless
16th Aug 2016, 12:52
True .....but the Premise is if the Guvmint disarms the Law abiding Citizen then gun violence ends.

Even by your own Stats that is not true.

We have a major problem with Murder, Rape, and Child Molestation by Illegal Aliens. Using the same logic then deporting all Illegal Aliens is the answer to that kind of violence.

I suppose you will be ok with ridding our society of guns but not Illegal Aliens despite the Premise being the same!




Underfire says:


Right, so 226 deaths out of our 20million is a rate of .00001, which would mean that the US with 10 times the population would have a total of 2,226 per year. But that is just the number you guys killed per month, so your stats are looking a bit sick.

vapilot2004
16th Aug 2016, 12:56
We have a major problem with Murder, Rape, and Child Molestation

Ok, I'll give you murder if you give me a few high-ranking, guilty Republican members of Congress of the latter two offences and we can skip the whole illegal aliens argument.

West Coast
16th Aug 2016, 14:54
You harp on guilty Republicans, just to balance your diet out, you did read about the PA AG today didn't you VAPA?

Your Clinton-esque attemps to portray Republicans in a certain light works right up until the point that readers open the newspaper and see Dems doing the same crap.

West Coast
16th Aug 2016, 14:59
Right, so 226 deaths out of our 20million is a rate of .00001, which would mean that the US with 10 times the population would have a total of 2,226 per year. But that is just the number you guys killed per month, so your stats are looking a bit sick.

How's it compared to similar sized countries?

bedsted
16th Aug 2016, 18:32
When O’Care and the IRS fire up, the paperwork! It’s a rainforest down every couple of hours.
I like the Yanks, I like living in the US and feel safer there but I’m pulling out owing to their ridiculously expensive and not very good healthcare.

SASless
16th Aug 2016, 18:53
You think the UK NHS is anything to brag about?

My 97 year old Mom just had a Hip Replacement and two Emergency Room Visits and now in in Skilled Nursing/Rehab courtesy of Medicare

Out of Pocket Cost= Zero Dollars.

Monthly cost of her Insurance is just over 100 USD.

Obamacare Medical Insurance has high Deductibles and high costs.

When you make comparisons be careful to compare Apples!





When O’Care and the IRS fire up, the paperwork! It’s a rainforest down every couple of hours.
I like the Yanks, I like living in the US and feel safer there but I’m pulling out owing to their ridiculously expensive and not very good healthcare.

bedsted
16th Aug 2016, 19:04
Now you have pissed me off. I was on your side.
This is one thing I don’t like about some of you guys, big mouths know it all’s.
Who said I was talking about the NHS? Having said that, I have experienced the NHS and it’s a whole lot better that your crap system.

SASless
16th Aug 2016, 19:17
How many Hip Replacements does the NHS do for Women aged 97?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/04/27/hip-replacement-surgery-denied-to-thousands-each-year-despite-nh/

SASless
16th Aug 2016, 20:25
She has the standard Medicare Insurance policy, with a Blue Cross/Blue Shield Medicare Supplemental Insurance Policy which anyone can buy.

I carefully considered her medical options...doing nothing would kill her in short order due to Pneumonia or a similar problem as a direct result of being Bed Ridden.

Surgery gave her a chance to return to her situation before she broke her Femur.

She had Surgery on a Monday and was released to Rehab on a Friday.

She was on Tylenol for pain....an Over- the -Counter Pain Medicine.

She was up on her feet on Thursday before being released on Friday.



I pray you never have to make similar decisions about your Mom's Life as I can assure you it is not an easy thing to do.

As to your comment about using up Resources that younger people could be provided....that is NHS Mentality on display.

Rationing Healthcare is immoral no matter how you wish to justify it.

Fantasy figures.....I have the Hospital Bill laying right here on my Desk.

The only Fantasy involved here is your opinion it appears to me.

bcgallacher
16th Aug 2016, 20:40
Healthcare is even more rationed in the USA - 50% of bankruptcies in the USA are due to medical bills. 70% of those are to people who have medical insurance. Due to being outside the UK for many years I have had private medical insurance - more expensive than national insurance contributions. Coverage for illnesses had time limitations and other restrictions. The U.K. NHS is extremely efficient - the USA spends 2 1/2 times per head for healthcare than the UK for worse outcomes - have a look at some states infant mortality rates. If you want further detail read the Commonwealth Funds report on developed countries health care systems - USA comes last. The Commonwealth fund is an American organisation in spite of its name - the report is available on line.
At present I am under NHS care for prostate cancer and have absolutely no complaints - cost to me for body and bone scans,20 radiotherapy treatments plus oncologist consultations - absolutely nothing.

SASless
16th Aug 2016, 20:42
At what age would the NHS refuse to treat you upon being diagnosed with Prostate Cancer?

Also....do not confuse/co-mingle Healthcare and Health Insurance as they are two entirely different issues.

bcgallacher
16th Aug 2016, 20:49
The NHS would not refuse treatment on grounds of age - treatment will be given as required. Treatment is decided by individual doctors and specialists,not by committees or the fabled 'death panels' which were bandied about by US politicians who fought against Obamacare.

SASless
16th Aug 2016, 21:05
Fewer than one third of patients who met criteria set by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) underwent a total hip replacement, between 2011 and 2015, according to the University of Liverpool.

Some 114,1119 suffered hip fractures during the period but 77,601 did not receive the recommended surgery.

Hospitals are denying patients operations based on age, weight and mobility, even though the watchdog says everyone should have the operation unless they have cognitive impairments, cannot go under anaesthetic, or have such severe walking problems they cannot get around without using a stick.

From the Telegraph Article I linked earlier......how does that square with your statement?

From the Acme of Journalistic Standards.....the Guardian.....an article that discusses the "Rationing" of care within the UK NHS.

https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/apr/24/rationing-care-fact-of-life-nhs

Who are we to believe?

John Hill
16th Aug 2016, 21:18
SASless wroteAt what age would the NHS refuse to treat you upon being diagnosed with Prostate Cancer?

I have no idea but I do know a little about Prostate Cancer and I can say that depending upon the aggressiveness of the cancer and the symptoms being experienced by the patient the quality of life may be better if the cancer is left untreated. You have to bear in mind that treatment does not always bring a cure and the side effects of treatment may be much worse than the symptoms of the cancer.

bedsted
16th Aug 2016, 21:21
SASless, I have edited my post 93 in consideration of your comments.

West Coast
16th Aug 2016, 21:45
I have no idea but I do know a little about Prostate Cancer and I can say that depending upon the aggressiveness of the cancer and the symptoms being experienced by the patient the quality of life may be better if the cancer is left untreated. You have to bear in mind that treatment does not always bring a cure and the side effects of treatment may be much worse than the symptoms of the cancer.

I don't disagree John, the question is who has the ultimate say however.

West Coast
16th Aug 2016, 21:52
Bedsted

The US healthcare system has its issues, but as someone who's subject to it and has used it, I was pretty darn happy. A few years ago I had a relatively minor health issue. As I explained it to my youngest at the time, if I was a car, it was the equivalent of a flat tire.

The 4.5 month process cost me less than $100 USD. Al of that was for prescriptions meds. Four medical procedures, a number of nights in hospital and follow ups and the cost was about that of a nice dinner with the wife.

John Hill
16th Aug 2016, 22:06
I don't disagree John, the question is who has the ultimate say however.

I trust you are never in the situation but when the patient gets the diagnosis that does not make them an instant expert on the disease. The advice I give is that the patient must have confidence in the medical professional and take their advice. In NZ the patient does have rights regarding choice of treatment.

Allowing the patient to make the choice without the benefit of expert advice is not really a good idea and it is rather unfair to expect them to make the best decision, in the case of prostate cancer sufferers are prone to choose surgery to 'get it over and done with' but often surgery is clearly not the best option.

When I sit myself in 47F I just have to trust that the two children in the front know what they are doing.

West Coast
16th Aug 2016, 22:17
The advice I give is that the patient must have confidence in the medical professional and take their advice.

To a degree yes. There's reason we get second medical opinions however.

Plenty of young lads have erred as doctors and as 47F pilots.

galaxy flyer
16th Aug 2016, 23:23
always going to end in embarrassment....

OK, what embarrassment? Is there some Olympic event we're losing? The US has more violence for lots of cultural reasons not found elsewhere, move on, nothing to see here.

GF

tartare
16th Aug 2016, 23:47
From guns to prostates.
Much as I like firearms (in particular the six foot flame out the front of a .357 Magnum) this thread was a little more interesting when we were talking long term macroeconomics... although on reflection for most of us, our prostates will probably get us before a gun does...

John Hill
17th Aug 2016, 05:10
Plenty of young lads have erred as doctors and as 47F pilots.

Actually, I meant seat 47F not a Chinook but I guess the meaning is the same.

Sue Vêtements
17th Aug 2016, 05:22
The 4.5 month process cost me less than $100 USD. All of that was for prescriptions meds. Four medical procedures, a number of nights in hospital and follow ups and the cost was about that of a nice dinner with the wife.Are you saying the hospital stay and follow ups were free?

TowerDog
17th Aug 2016, 05:34
Not sure the hospital stay was free:
I spent 3 nights in a US hospital after breaking 3 ribs. (Pain managment.)
Total cost was $12,000. Fortunately my insurance covered most of it.

West Coast
17th Aug 2016, 05:34
Sue

As TD indicated. I'm on my wife's benefit plan provided by her employer.

vapilot2004
17th Aug 2016, 05:40
You harp on guilty Republicans, just to balance your diet out, you did read about the PA AG today didn't you VAPA?


I agree, same crap, different party, but you gotta admit, the GOP has harbored some humdingers in the past couple of decades.

Sky Slug
17th Aug 2016, 06:06
I recently saw a commercial for a Long Island hospital. A retired pilot from Oslo (probably SK) went to Winthrop for prostate cancer treatment, and commended them for saving his life.

Back in 2006 my fraternity president was from Winnipeg and had no US health insurance. He had gallstones, he couldn't make it out of bed, and it would've taken 6 weeks for him to be treated in Winnipeg. His grandmother wired him the money, he was up and walking in two days.

I read an article several years ago that that stated that there are more MRI machines in Philadelphia than Canada. Not NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, or Los Angeles. Philadelphia.

bcgallacher
17th Aug 2016, 08:50
I am in this situation at present - being monitored without treatment at present. This is my second bout of prostate cancer after a prostatectomy in 2008. I have absolutely no perceived symptoms of anything - the only indication is a rising PSA level. I am fit for my age and regarding West Coasts question who decides - like anywhere else decisions are made solely by my consultations with my oncologist. If a patient is not content with NHS treatment they are at liberty to purchase private care. Our system works - we are healthier than the USA and live longer. The system is cheap and effective and would be even better if our right wing government would stop starving it of funds to try to get support for privatisation to get the profits into the hands of insurance companies and providers like the US.

West Coast
17th Aug 2016, 16:59
I am fit for my age and regarding West Coasts question who decides - like anywhere else decisions are made solely by my consultations with my oncologist. If a patient is not content with NHS treatment they are at liberty to purchase private care.

What if the opinion of your oncologist differs from yours as far as a course of action?

Chesty Morgan
17th Aug 2016, 18:26
What happens if the opinion of your passengers differs from yours as far as a course of action?

West Coast
17th Aug 2016, 18:42
Not the best anaolgy as any decision I make as the PIC wrt safety of my passengers isn't tainted by financial implications, but I understand your point and it's what I'm concerned about.

If I still have fight left in me to try and beat the odds, but the oncologist believes resources are better sent on someone a few years younger, a bit healthier, etc, who has the final say?

KenV
17th Aug 2016, 19:19
I am fit for my age and regarding West Coasts question who decides - like anywhere else decisions are made solely by my consultations with my oncologist.And what happens when one is not "fit for your age" or else so aged that they are no longer fit? Does the doctor get to decide who is "fit enough" to continue to expend limited medical resources on?

bcgallacher
17th Aug 2016, 19:57
Ken V - are you under the impression that NHS doctors are somehow operating under different ethics those in private practice in the US? The NHS is a massive organisation with resources available to it in quantity. Have you read the Commonwealth Funds report on world healthcare systems? It is a US organisation - it rates the US as last in developed countries. The report is available on Google.

John Hill
17th Aug 2016, 20:45
Bcg, where you given options to address the rising PSA and were they adequately explained to you?

PM me if you would like to 'share' our experiences of this situation.

obgraham
17th Aug 2016, 21:24
This debate gets right to the center of the issue.

You can have top notch care. You can have immediate availability. You can have cost effective care.

But you only get to pick 2 of those 3.

By and large I'm with John Hill on this issue. It's quite possible to provide superb care. His country, and UK, and others, do so. The downside is that sometimes you wait, and sometimes it's not always exactly what you might want.

But if we try to serve 3 masters in the US it just is not economically feasible. Every American wants control of health care costs. Except for his own, in which case he wants everything there is, and right now.

It's sheer lunacy to be doing hip replacements on 97 year olds, and heart transplants on 85 year olds. But because we have so many underutilized facilities, the surgeons will do the case anyway.

Chesty Morgan
17th Aug 2016, 22:16
Not the best anaolgy as any decision I make as the PIC wrt safety of my passengers isn't tainted by financial implications, but I understand your point and it's what I'm concerned about.

Only if you work on the assumption that people are denied treatment based solely on finance.

I hate to pee on your chips but many decisions we make daily as pilots are based on financial implications. You are a commercial pilot after all.

West Coast
17th Aug 2016, 22:51
I hate to pee on your chips but many decisions we make daily as pilots are based on financial implications. You are a commercial pilot after all.

Yes and no. Sure I fly the CI number, sure I single engine taxi when appropriate. I do any number of things within my ability, within FOM and SOP allowances based on the recognition that this is a business. That financial concern ends when the the safety of my passengers and crew is in question. I should hope that you're no different when your day includes a complicated QRH procedure ending up with a "nearest suitable" solution.

Only if you work on the assumption that people are denied treatment based solely on finance.

That's what this discussion is about. Who has the final say under socialized medicine, you or the Doctor?

Doc say I think you've a minimal chance of beating cancer, go home and enjoy your final days. Patient say, I have the fire in the belly to try. Then what?

Tankertrashnav
17th Aug 2016, 23:17
That's what this discussion is about. Who has the final say under socialized medicine, you or the Doctor?

Well in my case it was me.

Eleven years ago I started peeing blood. A trip to my GP led in quick succession to a visit to my local hospital and then an exploratory op the next morning during which the surgeon removed a cancer from my bladder.

A few weeks later I had had a consultation with him when he told me he recommended removing my bladder as this would guarantee no re-occurrence (he was a surgeon after all). The idea of having a pee bag strapped to me for the rest of my life didn't appeal so I chose the alternative of keeping my bladder and having a load of chemo and radiotherapy, which was a nuisance, but not too bad.

Since then I've had annual cystoscopies and so far all is clear. So I did have a choice, even though my consultant surgeon didn't really like it.

Incidentally none of this has cost me a penny over and above the National Insurance contributions I made throughout my working life.

West Coast
17th Aug 2016, 23:25
TTN

Good news indeed.

G-CPTN
17th Aug 2016, 23:44
A quarter of a century ago I was hospitalised in a ward along with other patients, most of who were awaiting heart, lung or heart and lung transplants (I was there by default as they had failed to determine what was the cause of my problem - which ultimately turned out to be a 'dead' (infarcted) lung - though not caused by an embolism but by sequestration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulmonary_sequestration)).

Anyway, there was a particular patient with chronic emphysema who had been listed for a transplant but after tests it was decided that he wasn't fit enough for the operation so he was being sent home as unsuitable for treatment.

For most people that would be devastating news, but this happy chap insisted that we should join him in singing 'Always look on the bright side of life'.

Whenever I hear (or think about) it I remember that chap - probably aged no more than 50 or maybe even younger.
Of course he will be long gone now, but he certainly had a positive outlook on his remaining life.

Whether he would have been considered suitable 'today' (at the age and condition that he was in back then) I just don't know.

No doubt it was a clinical decision based on the probability of his survival and the desire not to 'waste' a precious set of heart and lungs.

Chesty Morgan
17th Aug 2016, 23:48
That's what this discussion is about. Who has the final say under socialized medicine, you or the Doctor?

Your assumption is that medical decisions are based solely on financial matters?

As other on this thread have intimated that that isn't (always) the case.

West Coast
18th Aug 2016, 00:13
Your assumption is that medical decisions are based solely on financial matters?

Not solely, but at times I suspect fiscal and resource utilization play a key part of a life and death decision making with the patient not having the ultimate say.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dGFXGwHsD_A

Chesty Morgan
18th Aug 2016, 08:50
Why should the patient have the ultimate say?

SASless
18th Aug 2016, 13:25
Doctors are supposed to comply with the concept of "Do No Harm!"....granted some think that applies to their Annual Income but most do understand it applies to the Patient first then their Pay Check.

When One is tasked with the responsibility to make Healthcare decisions for another Person....that same Rule applies.

The Devil in the Details is deciding which action is the least harmful, or if that decision shortens or prolongs Life...especially if the "Life" is at the stage of not being worth living.

I would find it much easier to make the same decision about my own Life than I do for my Mother.

I am quite sure when Life puts you into that situation....which at some point quite a few of you will find yourself doing....it is much different in real life than while discussing the matter on an internet forum.

It is not an abstract event when you have to look into the eyes of the person you are speaking for while making those decisions.

You consider the facts, the options, the other person's desires made known earlier...then make the best decision you can. After you make it....you will always have doubts as to whether you did the right thing as Life does not always go straight down a simple clear path. When it does....then it is fairly simple to know if you were right. It is when that path takes some turns, twists, and detours that causes you to second guess.

West Coast
18th Aug 2016, 15:55
Why should the patient have the ultimate say?

You seem adverse to answering my question directly. For the sake of citizens in your nation, I hope they have the ultimate say.

Chesty Morgan
18th Aug 2016, 16:48
You didn't ask a question. Although I did...

So you're a proponent of unqualified people making decisions based on...what?

charliegolf
18th Aug 2016, 17:17
Doc say I think you've a minimal chance of beating cancer, go home and enjoy your final days. Patient say, I have the fire i the belly to try. Then what?

Foul! That would never be the case in UK , ever.

Try, "Well, there is nothing else we an do to secure survival; and no further treatment we have beyond palliative care. We will arrange that. Go home and enjoy time with your family."

What would you envisage the patient's response, precipitating a conflict based on finance, to be?

CG

West Coast
18th Aug 2016, 17:18
Who has the final say under socialized medicine, you or the Doctor?

Are you being obtuse CM? Above is my question, again.

Why should the patient have the final say? Because it's their life at stake.

You may not like the answer, but at least I've offered you one. Perhaps you can return the favor.

Chesty Morgan
18th Aug 2016, 17:32
Responded to already.

Is it their life at stake? Against the judgement of a well trained medical professional you're going to pit your extensive medical knowledge!? Ok.

Hempy
18th Aug 2016, 17:39
ffs Chesty. West Coast is an expert on Everything don't you know? He has 4,000 hours on oncology, 6,000 hours on climate change, 8,000 hours on the US Constitution, 10,000 hours on guns and at least another 50,000 hours on whatever other subject you'd l care to disagree with him about.

He's just like that Prof you had at uni that knew everything, only without the credentials. He deserves your awe and admiration, not disrespect.

West Coast
18th Aug 2016, 17:42
No, you've danced around the question.

In your nation, does the medical system have the final say about a life or death decision?

It's a yes, no, or I don't know answer.

As much as I disagree with your positions, you've been forthcoming with answers in past arguments, don't go all troll-ish on me, answer the question as asked.

Chesty Morgan
18th Aug 2016, 17:47
West Coast your question has been answered by people who have actually experienced major medical treatment in this country. Why are you ignoring them?

Hempy, thanks for clearing that up. I defer to his medical experience in that case. Awe dutifully given. Although he still hasn't commented on people, unlike his good self, who don't have such extensive knowledge demanding treatment from said medical professionals.

KenV
18th Aug 2016, 17:56
Why should the patient have the ultimate say? Why? Lot's of reasons. For example in TTN's case above it meant getting chemo and radiotherapy instead of a bladder removal. Don't know which was more expensive, but I know that chemo and radio therapy is not cheap. So what I'm saying is the patient should be the primary decision maker because it is their body and their life and they have to live with the consequences of whatever decision is made.

Also, keep in mind that this goes both ways. For example, in my mother in law's case she chose to terminate oxygen therapy. Oxygen therapy is not difficult nor intrusive. But she wanted it stopped even though the doctor wanted to continue the therapy and prolong her life. She died quietly in her sleep several hours after the therapy ended. And I believe that it was her right to make that choice.

West Coast
18th Aug 2016, 18:09
West Coast your question has been answered by people who have actually experienced major medical treatment in this country. Why are you ignoring them?

I don't know what country you're from to begin with.

Some posters have talked about life changing decisions such as a bag vs a differing surgical procedure. None I've read have have commented on procedures that carry end of life implications.

galaxy flyer
18th Aug 2016, 18:11
It's the individual's sole discretion and is certainly that way in the US. The Doc acts only as a consultant to the patient advising the medical procedures and likely outcomes. Society's majority don't get to vote in a system of care that denies the individual their rights to their physical being.

In the anthrax cases, several patients survived because their family's got involved beyond the "experts".

Anyone that submits unquestioning to the "experts" is a fool.

GF

SASless
18th Aug 2016, 19:40
I just spent an hour today discussing my Mom's medical care, prognosis, interventions, etc....and planning for the various outcomes.

The Doctor, Physical Therapist, Charge Nurse, and Social Worker all had their say, answered my several Questions and in the end....I made the necessary decisions re my Mom's Healthcare.

The only time Finances got involved is when we discussed adding Hospice Care to Skilled Nursing Care should Rehab fail to achieve its goals.

At no time was care going to be withheld due to "Cost".

All the Medical folks can do is counsel, suggest, advise, perhaps even beg....but the decision is made by the Patient or the Health Care Power of Attorney.

In my case....I have to deal with the Veteran's Administration Bureaucracy but in the end it is I who makes the final decision about my health care.

obgraham
18th Aug 2016, 20:03
The problem with your plan, SAS, is that it's one thing to make decisions when you have no financial stake, and the cost of said plan is borne by others -- either via insurance or gummint, it makes no difference.

So when we make a "decision" which has very little upside and might be very expensive, that decision could be different if a person had to bear the whole cost.

Play that out over the entire population, rather than on an individual basis, and you soon have a nonviable system.

West Coast
18th Aug 2016, 20:16
Opinion aside OB, is that the current state of affairs, the patient has the final say in the US?

Ancient Observer
18th Aug 2016, 20:20
Is this a 5 minute argument, or a 10 minute argument? I'm sure I paid for 10 minutes.

SASless
18th Aug 2016, 20:22
What you miss is this "cost" is being borne by an Insurance Plan that has been paid on for Decades...in Mom's case more like Seven Decades.

That the Medicare Premiums are mandatory as a government dictate....then she is not taking advantage of anything while availing herself of the promised services as part of that government program.

She also has a private insurance plan that covers costs not paid by the Government Plan....and she has and continues to pay those Premiums.

To suggest obtaining services contained in the Contracts is somehow abusing the system is a flat stupid comment. The two entities set forth what services would be funded without regard to cost.

The Government and Blue Cross/Blue Shield elected to be in this business, one requires participation by force of law.....the other by its own choice.

Your point that if there were no insurance of any kind, government or private, consumers might forego obtaining services is accurate.

But to confuse the issue as you have is wrong.....and your suggesting either I or my Mom have abused the system in some way is wrong headed. What you personally think of her having a Partial Hip Replacement at age 97 is not germane to the discussion.

You should limit your angst to generic issues.

As you are supposed to be a Medical Professional....do you counsel your patients the same way as you are posting here? Do you tell Patients or their next of kin that Granny is old....never mind the broken Femur....treat her nice and let her lay in a bed till Pneumonia kills her or do you discuss all the Options and let them decide what is best for the Patient?

Chesty Morgan
18th Aug 2016, 20:44
I don't know what country you're from to begin with.

Some posters have talked about life changing decisions such as a bag vs a differing surgical procedure. None I've read have have commented on procedures that carry end of life implications.

Why is my country relevant all of a sudden?

That's the first time you've mentioned end of life situations and indeed it is the first specific reference to it in this thread. If you want to engage in debate I suggest you ask more specific questions and make more specific statements.

We have been discussing treatment and whether or not it happens. You suddenly changing goal post position is odd.

West Coast
18th Aug 2016, 20:59
Why is my country relevant all of a sudden?

Because you said this:

West Coast your question has been answered by people who have actually experienced major medical treatment in this country

Trying to identify "this country".

I'm curious to how socialized medicine in differing nations approaches potentially end of life situations where the Doctor's opinion differs with the patient.

To achieve my goal, I need to know the nations involved.

Chesty Morgan
18th Aug 2016, 21:00
Well, the location of the two people who answered you is easy to see!

West Coast
18th Aug 2016, 21:28
You either can't or won't answer the question.

obgraham
18th Aug 2016, 21:35
What I'm saying, SAS is very simple: We have in the USA an absolutely unlimited demand for health care. In the long run it will suck the entire economy into it, unless somewhere and somehow we learn to develop some control on the demand side.

We have outstanding technology now in health care. But the costs are outrageous, and in the macro-health sense there is little evidence that we are any healthier.

Let's take that hip, for example. Granny is in a wheel chair, and falls getting out of it, fracturing that hip. If you leave her be, yes, she'll likely (50%) succumb to it within a short time. So we didn't do that -- we would put in a nail, or maybe an Austin-Moore prosthesis. Now I venture most orthos have never done those -- everyone gets a total hip. Now, if that's what the patient/family wants, so be it -- the discussion is who should pay for it.

If you never consider the costs while trying to determine the benefits, you will very soon be in an economic disaster.

And while we're at it, SAS, this is a discussion of health care policy. Not an opportunity for you to impugn my medical ethics, which I will be happy to defend if called upon.

Chesty Morgan
18th Aug 2016, 21:49
You either can't or won't answer the question.
It's been answered by at least two posters who have related their actual experience. What more do you need?!

bedsted
18th Aug 2016, 22:04
Yes I agree obgraham the costs are outrageous.
I’ll recall a fairly recent experience.
Mrs. B goes into ER suffering with a migraine. She just wants a painkilling shot.
She is given a CT scan. We reject the need for a chest X-ray and EKG.
Leaves hospital, total time 90 minutes.
Bill for hospital $6,900
Doctor $600 (never spoke to one)
Fee to read scan $203
Okay we made the mistake by going to an ER but 90 minutes and a bill of $7,703 wow! Our insurance did pick up all but $700 but of course this is paid back to them by high premiums.
West Coast, you stated you paid very little for a lengthy procedure but you are ex-military and all my ex mil friends tell me that Uncle Sam picks up most of the tab, unfortunately I do not have that luxury.

cavortingcheetah
18th Aug 2016, 22:35
Not only does Uncle Sam pick up the tab for the military man for life but it would seem that the US tax payer also funds medical expenses for the military man's wife of the day even though the military man retired from service decades before he met his present wife.
If that is the case then surely there's something wrong? Such largesse with the public purse will inevitably only lead to spiralling medical expenses as more insurance companies agree what are in effect protected tariffs with hospital groups.
I can get medical insurance in the US. Top of the range for two of us will cost around $30k a year. Certainly some of that enormous figure could be offset against federal tax, which is more than can be said for medical insurance fees in Britain.
Of course, you're not supposed to need medical insurance under the NHS umbrella but you can die waiting for many procedures if you don't have it. The equivalent quality of cover that costs $30k in the States costs £10k in the UK but that policy has an annual maximum claim limitation of £600k which, according to US medical insurance sources, is a trifle low for the US.

SASless
18th Aug 2016, 22:47
I am as free to challenge your statements as you have been to challenge my decisions. As to your Ethics you alone have to look into the Mirror each Morning.

I notice you did not answer the question.

In my case Granny did not fall from a wheel chair...she was up right and walking on her own two feet. I would suggest her Surgeon is well respected and a Specialist for a major hospital in the State and is Board Certified. The Surgery was quite successful and relatively pain free with Granny taking OTC pain medicine and was walking with no distress two days after the Procedure.

We know indeed 50% is the average Mortality post Hip replacement Surgery....but we also know not doing the Surgery is 100 % Fatal.

As you know nothing of the Patient, the Surgeons, or the Hospital I find it odd you would impugn a Doctor such as you have.

Again...do you tell Granny's Kids to take Her Home and keep her comfortable while waits to die.....or do you discuss all of the Options with each one's associated Risks?

That is twice I asked you that direct question!







What I'm saying, SAS is very simple: We have in the USA an absolutely unlimited demand for health care. In the long run it will suck the entire economy into it, unless somewhere and somehow we learn to develop some control on the demand side.

We have outstanding technology now in health care. But the costs are outrageous, and in the macro-health sense there is little evidence that we are any healthier.

Let's take that hip, for example. Granny is in a wheel chair, and falls getting out of it, fracturing that hip. If you leave her be, yes, she'll likely (50%) succumb to it within a short time. So we didn't do that -- we would put in a nail, or maybe an Austin-Moore prosthesis. Now I venture most orthos have never done those -- everyone gets a total hip. Now, if that's what the patient/family wants, so be it -- the discussion is who should pay for it.

If you never consider the costs while trying to determine the benefits, you will very soon be in an economic disaster.

And while we're at it, SAS, this is a discussion of health care policy. Not an opportunity for you to impugn my medical ethics, which I will be happy to defend if called upon.

obgraham
18th Aug 2016, 23:09
I'm not going to argue semantics with you, SAS -- we are usually on the same side of things. That's the strength of us rightwingers--: we can differ on things.

I was not discussing your granny in particular. I was using the term to include all us geezers. And I said not one word about her surgeon. In the vast majority of such cases the surgeon is good and the outcome is also good.

I did in fact answer the question -- I outlined the three basic choices after a hip fracture in the elderly, and I pointed out what the usual current choice is. You know from your experience that when a doctor offers several choices, with essentially no cost factor to the patient or family, they will generally choose the fanciest -- it is human nature.

We have to separate the economics of the health care system from the individual decisions. If we don't, the system will become nonviable.

vapilot2004
19th Aug 2016, 02:39
Not only does Uncle Sam pick up the tab for the military man for life but it would seem that the US tax payer also funds medical expenses for the military man's wife of the day even though the military man retired from service decades before he met his present wife.

If that is the case then surely there's something wrong? Such largesse with the public purse will inevitably only lead to spiralling medical expenses as more insurance companies agree what are in effect protected tariffs with hospital groups.

Health care for Veterans has a long history in the US - going back to the founding battle - the Revolutionary War. When you dedicate your life to serving your country, and that service includes the possibility of giving your life, I'd say the country owes you a little something.

Congressional budget cuts to VA programs coupled with a near doubling of expenses due to injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan led to the federally funded TriCare programs to increase premiums from non active duty military - in some cases dramatically to over $150/month by next year.

obgraham
19th Aug 2016, 03:06
Well, here again, VAP, is part of the problem. We have too many groups to whom the "country owes a little something".

Extend Medicare to everyone. Get rid of the VA. Allow those who served, injured or not, to access the full range of care everyone else has, with any doctors or hospitals they choose. Close down the inefficient and often incompetent VA hospitals. That's my plan.

Awaiting the incoming.

vapilot2004
19th Aug 2016, 03:10
Aside from the difficulties with the VA hospital system, which I agree is flawed, TriCare falls along similar guidelines and funding as Medicare already.

Extend Medicare to everyone.

Makes sense to me, but the Republican Congress would never allow such a thing to occur, so instead we got the ACA, the best that could be managed out of the recalcitrant naysayers of negativism aka the party of "No".

We have too many groups to whom the "country owes a little something".

Ain't that the truth. More to follow...

SASless
19th Aug 2016, 03:21
obj,

This time we fully agree!

Metro man
19th Aug 2016, 03:25
Health care costs in the USA are out of control because of lawyers. Doctors have to pay massive insurance premiums incase they get sued, a sympathetic jury might rule for the plaintiff to give them compensation even though the doctor isn't in the wrong, he's just perceived as having deep pockets.

All those tests mentioned earlier for a simple headache are done to protect the doctor and insurer, not for the patients benefit. Unfortunately they cost money.

You already have socialised medicine in the US, hospitals have to provide emergency treatment for free the cost of which gets passed onto those who actually pay through increased premiums. Bills get negotiated downwards, some file for bankruptcy and the hospital gets X cents on the dollar.

With some of the figures mentioned in previous posts, its hardly surprising medical tourism is growing at such a rate. Private hospitals in Asia often have western trained doctors, a high standard of care and prices a fraction of what the cost would be in a western country.

The Bumrungrand hospital in Bangkok does a hip replacement for under US$19 000

https://www.bumrungrad.com/en/joint-replacement-surgery-center-bangkok-thailand/packages/total-hip-replacement-mako-1-1

West Coast
19th Aug 2016, 03:30
I'd have no issue in altering the way we take care of vets, but the thought of fewer benefits and services wouldn't sit well with me.

SASless
19th Aug 2016, 03:40
Due to some unusual experiences on my two senior trips to a far off land...I qualify for full coverage by the illustrious VA Medical System.

By rights of having worked in the civilian market long enough to qualify for Medicare and having the foresight to buy a Medicare Supplemental Insurance Plan....I also get to use that system if I wish.

After my last go around with the VA Yesterday.....I am firmly convinced to shift my healthcare to a local provider and fore go the wonderful VA services.

At least my local Quacks do not have nearly the bureaucracy the Federal Government does.....although some are getting very close to being just as bad.

One thing for sure....they are a hell of a lot easier to sue in Civil Court and that one thing makes them far more responsive to concerns unlike the VA that could care less.

MarcK
19th Aug 2016, 03:44
So you would agree, then, with the proposition that a passenger, seeing the wing on fire, has the right to open the exit even if the cabin crew and flight deck say no ("recommend against it").

galaxy flyer
19th Aug 2016, 03:52
Who said that? The Strawman from Cali that's who.

GF

John Hill
19th Aug 2016, 04:27
I'd have no issue in altering the way we take care of vets, but the thought of fewer benefits and services wouldn't sit well with me.

No, of course you would not like that.

vapilot2004
19th Aug 2016, 06:21
One thing for sure....they are a hell of a lot easier to sue in Civil Court and that one thing makes them far more responsive to concerns unlike the VA that could care less.


One of the reasons health care is so expensive in America.

Physicians practice what is known as "defensive medicine", involving procedures not for protecting patient's health but instead for legally protecting themselves. In a recent study, an estimated $45 billion was wasted in just one year on this practice alone.