|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I fail to see how stripping employees of the ability to functionally collectively negotiate helps those employees?
|
On January 31 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I fail to see how stripping employees of the ability to functionally collectively negotiate helps those employees?
because to many unions in the US are only thinking about enriching their members and not about economic viability.
To expand a little.
Unions are fine and a great boon to employees but all to often they work to protect their members from being fired and maintaining to high benefits when the economy requires them to give up a little.
|
On January 31 2015 04:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I fail to see how stripping employees of the ability to functionally collectively negotiate helps those employees? because to many unions in the US are only thinking about enriching their members and not about economic viability
Yeah, no one is talking about union reform/dismantling for the purpose of improving the circumstances of their members. It's quite the opposite actually. Public sector unions have grossly abused their position within society at the expense of taxpayers.
|
On January 30 2015 17:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 15:57 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:51 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 15:44 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:25 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 13:18 IgnE wrote:
Is measles really that bad though guys? depends, is blindness and death a bad thing? And with modern medicine, this ranks about as likely as winning the lottery. Twice. One the same day. Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. obviously for a majority of cases it never gets that extreme, but that's still realistic possibility, even the most deadly outbreaks still has fairly relative "high" survival rate, but prevention is a lot easier than dealing with outbreak. But with modern medicine "prevention" by vaccine carries a similar danger risk as contracting the disease itself. Both are low, but I am failing to see the case for vaccines in a society with a properly functioning healthcare field. This scare mongering about old folks and immune-compromised individuals is simply a fallacy. You could use the same argument to say we should quarantine anyone with the sniffles because immune-compromised individuals might be hurt if they catch the cold/flu/runny nose/etc. It may be a tough transition, but with the safety net that modern medical treatments provide, it would be best to let everyone run the risk of contracting measles when they are young and healthy to provide the long lasting immunity that natural immunity provides, rather than this junk immunity pushed by "experts". Junk immunity? ![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/measels.PNG) SourceCases of the measles plummeted towards zero after vaccination. It works, the data doesn't lie. It's also rare to be harmed by vaccination. Moreover, waiting to treat someone after they contract a disease can have side-effects as well and tends to be more expensive. Edit: Show nested quote +Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. This sounds contradictory. Natural immunity is the way to go - but wait - prevention via hygiene is the way to go? I'm not sure how it makes sense for you to advocate both. It's either good for people to get the disease and gain immunity (chicken pox) or you actively try to prevent ever getting it.
The data seems to show a precipitous drop in measles cases before the vaccine was put into widespread usage. I appreciate you proving my point.
Also, common treatment of measles is....
•acetaminophen to relieve fever and muscle aches.
•rest to help boost your immune system.
•plenty of fluids (six to eight glasses of water a day)
•humidifier to ease a cough and sore throat.
•vitamin A supplements.
Not sure which ones of those are expensive.
Also, it's not contradictory at all to simultaneously want to avoid something, yet concur that the benefits of doing something one way is superior to another. I seek to avoid auto accidents, yet if I am going to be in one, I would prefer to be t-boned on the passenger side versus the driver side.
|
On January 31 2015 05:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2015 04:59 Gorsameth wrote:On January 31 2015 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
I fail to see how stripping employees of the ability to functionally collectively negotiate helps those employees? because to many unions in the US are only thinking about enriching their members and not about economic viability Yeah, no one is talking about union reform/dismantling for the purpose of improving the circumstances of their members. It's quite the opposite actually. Public sector unions have grossly abused their position within society at the expense of taxpayers.
I guess I'm curious if the logic goes beyond public unions? Do conservatives think that everyone should be stripped of the ability to collectively bargain for everything or just certain public unions and certain aspects as Walker did?
Walker may have weakened unions with Act 10 but he hasn't done much about the pension issues conservatives tend to get upset about.
From the Wisconsin retirement plan:
Is there a minimum number of years that I have to work under the WRS (Wisconsin Retirement System) to be vested?
You may have to meet one of two vesting laws depending on when you first began WRS employment.
If you first began WRS employment after 1989 and terminated employment before April 24, 1998, then you must have some WRS creditable service in five calendar years.
If you first began WRS employment on or after July 1, 2011, then you must have five years of WRS creditable service.
If neither vesting law applies, you were vested when you first began WRS employment. If you are not vested, you may only receive a separation benefit.
What is the earliest age at which I can retire?
All vested employees other than those in the protective category (police, firefighters, etc.) can retire and receive a retirement benefit at age 55; participants who have protective category service (other than purchased service) can retire at age 50. If you are not vested, regardless of your age, you may only receive a separation benefit.
|
On January 31 2015 05:16 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 17:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2015 15:57 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:51 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 15:44 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:25 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 13:18 IgnE wrote:
Is measles really that bad though guys? depends, is blindness and death a bad thing? And with modern medicine, this ranks about as likely as winning the lottery. Twice. One the same day. Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. obviously for a majority of cases it never gets that extreme, but that's still realistic possibility, even the most deadly outbreaks still has fairly relative "high" survival rate, but prevention is a lot easier than dealing with outbreak. But with modern medicine "prevention" by vaccine carries a similar danger risk as contracting the disease itself. Both are low, but I am failing to see the case for vaccines in a society with a properly functioning healthcare field. This scare mongering about old folks and immune-compromised individuals is simply a fallacy. You could use the same argument to say we should quarantine anyone with the sniffles because immune-compromised individuals might be hurt if they catch the cold/flu/runny nose/etc. It may be a tough transition, but with the safety net that modern medical treatments provide, it would be best to let everyone run the risk of contracting measles when they are young and healthy to provide the long lasting immunity that natural immunity provides, rather than this junk immunity pushed by "experts". Junk immunity? SourceCases of the measles plummeted towards zero after vaccination. It works, the data doesn't lie. It's also rare to be harmed by vaccination. Moreover, waiting to treat someone after they contract a disease can have side-effects as well and tends to be more expensive. Edit: Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. This sounds contradictory. Natural immunity is the way to go - but wait - prevention via hygiene is the way to go? I'm not sure how it makes sense for you to advocate both. It's either good for people to get the disease and gain immunity (chicken pox) or you actively try to prevent ever getting it. The data seems to show a precipitous drop in measles cases before the vaccine was put into widespread usage. I appreciate you proving my point. Also, common treatment of measles is.... •acetaminophen to relieve fever and muscle aches. •rest to help boost your immune system. •plenty of fluids (six to eight glasses of water a day) •humidifier to ease a cough and sore throat. •vitamin A supplements. Not sure which ones of those are expensive. Also, it's not contradictory at all to simultaneously want to avoid something, yet concur that the benefits of doing something one way is superior to another. I seek to avoid auto accidents, yet if I am going to be in one, I would prefer to be t-boned on the passenger side versus the driver side.
Are you really arguing against all vaccines? Smallpox was eradicated by vaccines. Polio was eradicated from the western world by vaccines. Vaccines have drastically reduced the number of tuberculosis cases in the western world. These are diseases that continued despite the drastically improving hygiene of the 20th century, so you can't make the case that hygiene is the answer. You also can't make the case that natural immunity is better, because these diseases quite often crippled or killed their victims, while the vaccines do not.
|
Native Americans probably had great populational natural immunity for smallpox for a while....after the disease wiped out the majority of their population and the survivors acquired immunity. The reason why measles was probably already going down was because the population had already suffered through many epidemics and most of those who were most prone died, vaccines drastically sped up the process and allows for a safer way to acquire immunity because you are infected with neutered forms of the pathogens rather then having later generations go through the same "natural" disease process where people would die.
The problem with the approach of leaving it to medical care is that A) access to healthcare is not equal, especially in the US and B) even with proper healthcare people will still die.
|
Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer believes any blame for a rift between the White House and House Speaker John Boehner rests solely with the speaker and not the Israeli government.
In an interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg published Friday, Dermer said “it was the speaker’s responsibility and normal protocol for the speaker’s office to notify the administration” about Boehner’s invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress.
It would have been “inappropriate” for the news to have come from the Israelis, Dermer said.
Dermer told Goldberg that he negotiated the March 3 date for the speech directly with the speaker’s office, assuming that Republican congressional leaders would then inform the administration.
For this reason, Dermer said, he chose not to relay news of the speech to Secretary of State John Kerry during a two-hour meeting the day before Boehner’s announcement. The administration ultimately heard about the speech on the morning before it was announced publicly, and reacted with furious anonymous quotes to various news outlets to what it perceived as a serious breach of diplomatic protocol.
Source
|
On January 31 2015 05:16 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 17:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2015 15:57 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:51 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 15:44 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:25 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 13:18 IgnE wrote:
Is measles really that bad though guys? depends, is blindness and death a bad thing? And with modern medicine, this ranks about as likely as winning the lottery. Twice. One the same day. Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. obviously for a majority of cases it never gets that extreme, but that's still realistic possibility, even the most deadly outbreaks still has fairly relative "high" survival rate, but prevention is a lot easier than dealing with outbreak. But with modern medicine "prevention" by vaccine carries a similar danger risk as contracting the disease itself. Both are low, but I am failing to see the case for vaccines in a society with a properly functioning healthcare field. This scare mongering about old folks and immune-compromised individuals is simply a fallacy. You could use the same argument to say we should quarantine anyone with the sniffles because immune-compromised individuals might be hurt if they catch the cold/flu/runny nose/etc. It may be a tough transition, but with the safety net that modern medical treatments provide, it would be best to let everyone run the risk of contracting measles when they are young and healthy to provide the long lasting immunity that natural immunity provides, rather than this junk immunity pushed by "experts". Junk immunity? SourceCases of the measles plummeted towards zero after vaccination. It works, the data doesn't lie. It's also rare to be harmed by vaccination. Moreover, waiting to treat someone after they contract a disease can have side-effects as well and tends to be more expensive. Edit: Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. This sounds contradictory. Natural immunity is the way to go - but wait - prevention via hygiene is the way to go? I'm not sure how it makes sense for you to advocate both. It's either good for people to get the disease and gain immunity (chicken pox) or you actively try to prevent ever getting it. The data seems to show a precipitous drop in measles cases before the vaccine was put into widespread usage. I appreciate you proving my point. Also, common treatment of measles is.... •acetaminophen to relieve fever and muscle aches. •rest to help boost your immune system. •plenty of fluids (six to eight glasses of water a day) •humidifier to ease a cough and sore throat. •vitamin A supplements. Not sure which ones of those are expensive. Also, it's not contradictory at all to simultaneously want to avoid something, yet concur that the benefits of doing something one way is superior to another. I seek to avoid auto accidents, yet if I am going to be in one, I would prefer to be t-boned on the passenger side versus the driver side.
Sure, the number of infections were not at an all time high just prior to vaccination, but there was still something like 1-2% of the population infected each year. Sanitation will not save you. From the CDC : Measles is so contagious that if one person has it, 90% of the people close to that person who are not immune will also become infected. Source
You either get vaccinated or you gain immunity after getting infected and surviving. Avoidance through sanitation just isn't viable. The only other option is to let everyone else get vaccinated then free ride off of herd immunity.
Getting the measles isn't a walk in the park either, particularly for kids: + Show Spoiler + Complications
Measles can be a serious in all age groups. However, children younger than 5 years of age and adults older than 20 years of age are more likely to suffer from measles complications.
Common Complications
Common measles complications include ear infections and diarrhea.
Ear infections occur in about one out of every 10 children with measles and can result in permanent hearing loss.
Diarrhea is reported in less than one out of 10 people with measles.
Severe Complications
Some people may suffer from severe complications, such as pneumonia (infection of the lungs) and encephalitis (swelling of the brain). They may need to be hospitalized and could die.
As many as one out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, the most common cause of death from measles in young children.
About one child out of every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis (swelling of the brain) that can lead to convulsions and can leave the child deaf or mentally retarded.
For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it.
Measles may cause pregnant woman to give birth prematurely, or have a low-birth-weight baby.
|
On January 31 2015 05:16 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 17:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2015 15:57 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:51 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 15:44 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:25 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 13:18 IgnE wrote:
Is measles really that bad though guys? depends, is blindness and death a bad thing? And with modern medicine, this ranks about as likely as winning the lottery. Twice. One the same day. Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. obviously for a majority of cases it never gets that extreme, but that's still realistic possibility, even the most deadly outbreaks still has fairly relative "high" survival rate, but prevention is a lot easier than dealing with outbreak. But with modern medicine "prevention" by vaccine carries a similar danger risk as contracting the disease itself. Both are low, but I am failing to see the case for vaccines in a society with a properly functioning healthcare field. This scare mongering about old folks and immune-compromised individuals is simply a fallacy. You could use the same argument to say we should quarantine anyone with the sniffles because immune-compromised individuals might be hurt if they catch the cold/flu/runny nose/etc. It may be a tough transition, but with the safety net that modern medical treatments provide, it would be best to let everyone run the risk of contracting measles when they are young and healthy to provide the long lasting immunity that natural immunity provides, rather than this junk immunity pushed by "experts". Junk immunity? SourceCases of the measles plummeted towards zero after vaccination. It works, the data doesn't lie. It's also rare to be harmed by vaccination. Moreover, waiting to treat someone after they contract a disease can have side-effects as well and tends to be more expensive. Edit: Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. This sounds contradictory. Natural immunity is the way to go - but wait - prevention via hygiene is the way to go? I'm not sure how it makes sense for you to advocate both. It's either good for people to get the disease and gain immunity (chicken pox) or you actively try to prevent ever getting it. The data seems to show a precipitous drop in measles cases before the vaccine was put into widespread usage. I appreciate you proving my point. Also, common treatment of measles is.... •acetaminophen to relieve fever and muscle aches. •rest to help boost your immune system. •plenty of fluids (six to eight glasses of water a day) •humidifier to ease a cough and sore throat. •vitamin A supplements. Not sure which ones of those are expensive. Also, it's not contradictory at all to simultaneously want to avoid something, yet concur that the benefits of doing something one way is superior to another. I seek to avoid auto accidents, yet if I am going to be in one, I would prefer to be t-boned on the passenger side versus the driver side.
The pattern in measles cases exhibited in that graph is in no way interpretable as proving your point. The variability exhibited prior to the vaccine is huge, in addition to a much, much larger number of cases. The practical and consistent elimination of the disease is overwhelmingly attributable to the implementation of the vaccination regimes.
Additionally, from the Wikipedia page linked the fatality from measles is approximately 0.1-0.2% (from the CDC), which is low, but complications from the vaccine are much, much lower than that. Additionally, the vaccine eliminates any potential further complications and long-term consequences, and prevents an otherwise unpleasant disease.
And this isn't even discussing much more serious diseases like smallpox, polio, diphtheria, meningitis, hepatitis, cervical cancer causing HPV, etc. that have all been essentially eradicated or whose spread is severely restricted as a result of vaccination. Fucking hepatitis man. Cervical cancer causing HPV. Polio. Those are serious fucking diseases. In a lot of them, you don't develop "natural immunity", or whatever ridiculous concept you're trying to espouse here. You fucking die, or suffer from serious long-term consequences.
What you are saying is nonsense. There is nothing wrong with vaccines, and you are objectively wrong.
See my post on the previous page, and stop spouting straight up nonsense.
|
On January 31 2015 06:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2015 05:16 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 17:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2015 15:57 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:51 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 15:44 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:25 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 13:18 IgnE wrote:
Is measles really that bad though guys? depends, is blindness and death a bad thing? And with modern medicine, this ranks about as likely as winning the lottery. Twice. One the same day. Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. obviously for a majority of cases it never gets that extreme, but that's still realistic possibility, even the most deadly outbreaks still has fairly relative "high" survival rate, but prevention is a lot easier than dealing with outbreak. But with modern medicine "prevention" by vaccine carries a similar danger risk as contracting the disease itself. Both are low, but I am failing to see the case for vaccines in a society with a properly functioning healthcare field. This scare mongering about old folks and immune-compromised individuals is simply a fallacy. You could use the same argument to say we should quarantine anyone with the sniffles because immune-compromised individuals might be hurt if they catch the cold/flu/runny nose/etc. It may be a tough transition, but with the safety net that modern medical treatments provide, it would be best to let everyone run the risk of contracting measles when they are young and healthy to provide the long lasting immunity that natural immunity provides, rather than this junk immunity pushed by "experts". Junk immunity? SourceCases of the measles plummeted towards zero after vaccination. It works, the data doesn't lie. It's also rare to be harmed by vaccination. Moreover, waiting to treat someone after they contract a disease can have side-effects as well and tends to be more expensive. Edit: Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. This sounds contradictory. Natural immunity is the way to go - but wait - prevention via hygiene is the way to go? I'm not sure how it makes sense for you to advocate both. It's either good for people to get the disease and gain immunity (chicken pox) or you actively try to prevent ever getting it. The data seems to show a precipitous drop in measles cases before the vaccine was put into widespread usage. I appreciate you proving my point. Also, common treatment of measles is.... •acetaminophen to relieve fever and muscle aches. •rest to help boost your immune system. •plenty of fluids (six to eight glasses of water a day) •humidifier to ease a cough and sore throat. •vitamin A supplements. Not sure which ones of those are expensive. Also, it's not contradictory at all to simultaneously want to avoid something, yet concur that the benefits of doing something one way is superior to another. I seek to avoid auto accidents, yet if I am going to be in one, I would prefer to be t-boned on the passenger side versus the driver side. The pattern in measles cases exhibited in that graph is in no way interpretable as proving your point. The variability exhibited prior to the vaccine is huge, in addition to a much, much number of cases. The practical and consistent elimination of the disease is overwhelmingly attributable to the implementation of the vaccination regimes. Additionally, from the Wikipedia page linked the fatality from measles is approximately 0.1-0.2% (from the CDC), which is low, but complications from the vaccine are much, much lower than that. Additionally, the vaccine eliminates any potential further complications and long-term consequences, and prevents an otherwise unpleasant disease. And this isn't even discussing much more serious diseases like smallpox, polio, diphtheria, meningitis, hepatitis, cervical cancer causing HPV, etc. that have all been essentially eradicated or whose spread is severely restricted as a result of vaccination. Fucking hepatitis man. Cervical cancer causing HPV. Polio. Those are serious fucking diseases. In a lot of them, you don't develop "natural immunity", or whatever ridiculous concept you're trying to espouse here. You fucking die, or suffer from serious long-term consequences. What you are saying is nonsense. There is nothing wrong with vaccines, and you are objectively wrong. See my post on the previous page, and stop spouting straight up nonsense.
It's really hard to take your post seriously when it contains such nonsense as your quote of "Additionally, the vaccine eliminates any potential further complications and long-term consequences, and prevents an otherwise unpleasant disease". Shingles for starters.
Then your rant in the last paragraph which makes little sense. HPV vaccine is relatively new for starters, so to attribute any sort of positive outcome from it defies reason. Besides, you don't contract HPV like the flu. It's a virus that is spread by one way. Go get educated, and come back and talk.
|
Pot Is Making Colorado So Much Money They Literally Have To Give Some Back To Residents
THU JAN 29, 2015
BY KRISTEN WYATT
ASSOCIATED PRESS
DENVER (AP) -- Colorado's marijuana experiment was designed to raise revenue for the state and its schools, but a state law may put some of the tax money directly into residents' pockets, causing quite a headache for lawmakers.
The state constitution limits how much tax money the state can take in before it has to give some back. That means Coloradans may each get their own cut of the $50 million in recreational pot taxes collected in the first year of legal weed. It's a situation so bizarre that it's gotten Republicans and Democrats, for once, to agree on a tax issue.
Legal weed has collided with the tax limitation movement because a 1992 voter-approved constitutional amendment called the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights requires all new taxes to go before voters.
The amendment also requires Colorado to pay back taxpayers when the state collects more than what's permitted by a formula based on inflation and population growth. Over the years, Colorado has issued refunds six times, totaling more than $3.3 billion.
Republicans and Democrats say there's no good reason to put pot taxes back into people's pockets, and state officials are scrambling to figure out how to avoid doling out the money. It may have to be settled by asking Colorado voters, for a third time, to cast a ballot on the issue and exempt pot taxes from the refund requirement.
Republicans concede that marijuana is throwing them off their usual position of wanting tax dollars returned to taxpayers.
Source
It is weird to see Republicans in Colorado and Kansas so supportive of taxation. Especially to the point in Colorado where they are trying to figure out how to prevent giving back tax money they are mandated to by law.
|
On January 31 2015 06:55 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2015 06:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On January 31 2015 05:16 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 17:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2015 15:57 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:51 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 15:44 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:25 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 13:18 IgnE wrote:
Is measles really that bad though guys? depends, is blindness and death a bad thing? And with modern medicine, this ranks about as likely as winning the lottery. Twice. One the same day. Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. obviously for a majority of cases it never gets that extreme, but that's still realistic possibility, even the most deadly outbreaks still has fairly relative "high" survival rate, but prevention is a lot easier than dealing with outbreak. But with modern medicine "prevention" by vaccine carries a similar danger risk as contracting the disease itself. Both are low, but I am failing to see the case for vaccines in a society with a properly functioning healthcare field. This scare mongering about old folks and immune-compromised individuals is simply a fallacy. You could use the same argument to say we should quarantine anyone with the sniffles because immune-compromised individuals might be hurt if they catch the cold/flu/runny nose/etc. It may be a tough transition, but with the safety net that modern medical treatments provide, it would be best to let everyone run the risk of contracting measles when they are young and healthy to provide the long lasting immunity that natural immunity provides, rather than this junk immunity pushed by "experts". Junk immunity? SourceCases of the measles plummeted towards zero after vaccination. It works, the data doesn't lie. It's also rare to be harmed by vaccination. Moreover, waiting to treat someone after they contract a disease can have side-effects as well and tends to be more expensive. Edit: Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. This sounds contradictory. Natural immunity is the way to go - but wait - prevention via hygiene is the way to go? I'm not sure how it makes sense for you to advocate both. It's either good for people to get the disease and gain immunity (chicken pox) or you actively try to prevent ever getting it. The data seems to show a precipitous drop in measles cases before the vaccine was put into widespread usage. I appreciate you proving my point. Also, common treatment of measles is.... •acetaminophen to relieve fever and muscle aches. •rest to help boost your immune system. •plenty of fluids (six to eight glasses of water a day) •humidifier to ease a cough and sore throat. •vitamin A supplements. Not sure which ones of those are expensive. Also, it's not contradictory at all to simultaneously want to avoid something, yet concur that the benefits of doing something one way is superior to another. I seek to avoid auto accidents, yet if I am going to be in one, I would prefer to be t-boned on the passenger side versus the driver side. The pattern in measles cases exhibited in that graph is in no way interpretable as proving your point. The variability exhibited prior to the vaccine is huge, in addition to a much, much number of cases. The practical and consistent elimination of the disease is overwhelmingly attributable to the implementation of the vaccination regimes. Additionally, from the Wikipedia page linked the fatality from measles is approximately 0.1-0.2% (from the CDC), which is low, but complications from the vaccine are much, much lower than that. Additionally, the vaccine eliminates any potential further complications and long-term consequences, and prevents an otherwise unpleasant disease. And this isn't even discussing much more serious diseases like smallpox, polio, diphtheria, meningitis, hepatitis, cervical cancer causing HPV, etc. that have all been essentially eradicated or whose spread is severely restricted as a result of vaccination. Fucking hepatitis man. Cervical cancer causing HPV. Polio. Those are serious fucking diseases. In a lot of them, you don't develop "natural immunity", or whatever ridiculous concept you're trying to espouse here. You fucking die, or suffer from serious long-term consequences. What you are saying is nonsense. There is nothing wrong with vaccines, and you are objectively wrong. See my post on the previous page, and stop spouting straight up nonsense. It's really hard to take your post seriously when it contains such nonsense as your quote of "Additionally, the vaccine eliminates any potential further complications and long-term consequences, and prevents an otherwise unpleasant disease". Shingles for starters. Then your rant in the last paragraph which makes little sense. HPV vaccine is relatively new for starters, so to attribute any sort of positive outcome from it defies reason. Besides, you don't contract HPV like the flu. It's a virus that is spread by one way. Go get educated, and come back and talk.
So, just to make sure, your argument is that the reduction in cases of polio, measles, smallpox, are based on improvements in personal hygiene, not on the vaccinations for those diseases?
And you stand by that ludicrous idea despite the fact that the large drops in cases of those diseases in no way happened at the same time (Which would be the case if a common unrelated reason like hygiene would be the cause), but instead each are directly preceded by the application of vaccines designed exactly to counter those diseases to the common population.
Smallpox especially is a wonderful case study. Infectations and deaths started dropping where people were vaccinated. They didn't drop in any similar fashion where people were not vaccinated, no matter what other similarities these areas might have. Interestingly, a lot of that happened before stuff like "big pharma" even existed.
|
On January 31 2015 06:55 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2015 06:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:On January 31 2015 05:16 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 17:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 30 2015 15:57 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:51 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 15:44 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:25 wei2coolman wrote:On January 30 2015 13:18 IgnE wrote:
Is measles really that bad though guys? depends, is blindness and death a bad thing? And with modern medicine, this ranks about as likely as winning the lottery. Twice. One the same day. Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. obviously for a majority of cases it never gets that extreme, but that's still realistic possibility, even the most deadly outbreaks still has fairly relative "high" survival rate, but prevention is a lot easier than dealing with outbreak. But with modern medicine "prevention" by vaccine carries a similar danger risk as contracting the disease itself. Both are low, but I am failing to see the case for vaccines in a society with a properly functioning healthcare field. This scare mongering about old folks and immune-compromised individuals is simply a fallacy. You could use the same argument to say we should quarantine anyone with the sniffles because immune-compromised individuals might be hurt if they catch the cold/flu/runny nose/etc. It may be a tough transition, but with the safety net that modern medical treatments provide, it would be best to let everyone run the risk of contracting measles when they are young and healthy to provide the long lasting immunity that natural immunity provides, rather than this junk immunity pushed by "experts". Junk immunity? SourceCases of the measles plummeted towards zero after vaccination. It works, the data doesn't lie. It's also rare to be harmed by vaccination. Moreover, waiting to treat someone after they contract a disease can have side-effects as well and tends to be more expensive. Edit: Most of the diseases that vaccines are administered for are easy handled by modern medicine. Natural immunity is infinitely superior to vaccine given "immunity" even though your prized scientist have admitted there is no such thing as vaccine "immunity". The simple truth is that improvements in personal hygiene brought about by the installation of public water and sewer in the early 1900's saw the decline of these diseases, a decline that preceded any widespread immunization program. This sounds contradictory. Natural immunity is the way to go - but wait - prevention via hygiene is the way to go? I'm not sure how it makes sense for you to advocate both. It's either good for people to get the disease and gain immunity (chicken pox) or you actively try to prevent ever getting it. The data seems to show a precipitous drop in measles cases before the vaccine was put into widespread usage. I appreciate you proving my point. Also, common treatment of measles is.... •acetaminophen to relieve fever and muscle aches. •rest to help boost your immune system. •plenty of fluids (six to eight glasses of water a day) •humidifier to ease a cough and sore throat. •vitamin A supplements. Not sure which ones of those are expensive. Also, it's not contradictory at all to simultaneously want to avoid something, yet concur that the benefits of doing something one way is superior to another. I seek to avoid auto accidents, yet if I am going to be in one, I would prefer to be t-boned on the passenger side versus the driver side. The pattern in measles cases exhibited in that graph is in no way interpretable as proving your point. The variability exhibited prior to the vaccine is huge, in addition to a much, much number of cases. The practical and consistent elimination of the disease is overwhelmingly attributable to the implementation of the vaccination regimes. Additionally, from the Wikipedia page linked the fatality from measles is approximately 0.1-0.2% (from the CDC), which is low, but complications from the vaccine are much, much lower than that. Additionally, the vaccine eliminates any potential further complications and long-term consequences, and prevents an otherwise unpleasant disease. And this isn't even discussing much more serious diseases like smallpox, polio, diphtheria, meningitis, hepatitis, cervical cancer causing HPV, etc. that have all been essentially eradicated or whose spread is severely restricted as a result of vaccination. Fucking hepatitis man. Cervical cancer causing HPV. Polio. Those are serious fucking diseases. In a lot of them, you don't develop "natural immunity", or whatever ridiculous concept you're trying to espouse here. You fucking die, or suffer from serious long-term consequences. What you are saying is nonsense. There is nothing wrong with vaccines, and you are objectively wrong. See my post on the previous page, and stop spouting straight up nonsense. It's really hard to take your post seriously when it contains such nonsense as your quote of "Additionally, the vaccine eliminates any potential further complications and long-term consequences, and prevents an otherwise unpleasant disease". Shingles for starters. Then your rant in the last paragraph which makes little sense. HPV vaccine is relatively new for starters, so to attribute any sort of positive outcome from it defies reason. Besides, you don't contract HPV like the flu. It's a virus that is spread by one way. Go get educated, and come back and talk.
No, it's really hard to take your post seriously, especially since shingles is not caused by the measles vaccine, it's caused by the varicella vaccine (chickenpox). It's often given in combination with the measles vaccines, but is not the measles vaccine.
EDIT: Also, anyone who contracts chickenpox is at risk of contracting shingles. Pretty much everyone gets chickenpox, so I suspect that the prevalence of shingles hasn't changed, just the vector (i.e. those who are going to get it get it from a different source without having to go through having chickenpox themselves). Hell, there's even a shingles vaccine, which although doesn't seem to be too effective has been shown to reduce incidence and severity of outbreaks......
And this is just another example of your absurd arguments. You attempt to cherry pick a very specific complication associated with a very specific vaccine, ignoring all of the rest of the arguments people make about the benefits of other vaccines, and then attempt to use that single issue as a blanket condemnation of vaccination. And you don't even get your example right.
And for the record, there ARE significant positive outcomes associated with the HPV vaccine, it has already been demonstrated to reduce risk of cervical cancers. And yes it is spread one way. Of course it is. Why would that even matter? How the fuck you think that is remotely relevant is beyond me. People deserve to be able to have sex without a significant risk of contracting the virus. Unless of course you have some religious objection to that...? Which would be odd, since in previous posts you were discussing how it was wrong to take away the rights of people to be home-schooled or to refuse vaccines, which I completely agree with.
|
On January 30 2015 15:53 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2015 15:40 hannahbelle wrote:On January 30 2015 15:04 Slaughter wrote:On January 30 2015 14:10 Bigtony wrote:On January 30 2015 13:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2015 12:41 Bigtony wrote:On January 30 2015 06:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 30 2015 03:52 Nyxisto wrote:
I feel the huge acceptance for these things also has to do with the US free speech culture that has turned facts into matters of opinion. Like when young earth creationists are actually taken serious enough that people are going to debate them over two hours as if the matter wasn't already settled a long time ago. The fact that there is very little communication between religion and public institutions in the US ironically seems to produce way more radical forms of belief. Another huge problem is that children are generally seen as property in our society. The general line for any topic is, "They're MY kids and I can do whatever I want with them!" This comes up with education (home schooling), healthcare (vaccinations), and many other situations. Parents see children as their property to mold into whatever they wish and no one sees children as actually having the right to quality healthcare, education, etc. The only time children have rights that protect them from their parents' decisions are (supposedly) when they're still a fetus and haven't been born yet. "Crossed that barrier and are now an autonomous human being? Nope! You don't get any guarantee of quality education or healthcare because you're nothing but the property of your parents!" I'm not seeing the part where someone besides parents should get to mold their children? Why would the government get to choose what philosophies and value systems are appropriate? It's not a matter of other people "molding" children, but a matter of children having the right to quality education. We already take it as a given that all people have a right to a certain level of education, and yet somehow American society thinks that it's O.K. for a parent to deny their child that standard of education because it's what "they want to teach their kids and they get to because it's THEIR kid". When you do things like withhold your child from school and teach them that (for example) evolution isn't real and the Earth is 6,000 years old, you are not only 1) teaching them something demonstrably false, but 2) shaping their thinking in a limited manner so that they lack certain critical thinking tools when they're adults. Would you say that someone who has full time 1 on 1 or 2 on 1 instruction for their child is denying their child a quality education? That's what home schoolers are getting. Their outcomes are the same or better than their public school peers. Someone not believing in evolution isn't going to destroy their critical thinking. And if it did? Still not the government's business at all. Sources on home schooler outcomes? Would be interesting to see the statistics. Is there even criteria for home schooling? Or can any parent do it regardless of their own educational background/skills do it. For starters
AnotherAnd anotherIf you need more just google. It's a not-so well known fact. There is an incredible amount of ignorance related to homeschooling, most of which are old notions of "homeschoolers aren't socialized" or "somehow since a kid doesn't spend all day in class with geniuses his own age he will never know how to think critically". Just think about what you are saying and you will realize how truly dumb it sounds. Besides, if socialization is a pregnant 13 year old, I'm glad my kids are missing out on it. Your sources seem to me like they show a bit of a mixed bag when it comes to home schooling. Aside from that, those mostly show results using standardized tests, which have nothing to do with critical thinking skills so the point someone made about underdeveloped critical thinking skills and the possibility of being restricted to a smaller range of ideas hasn't exactly been refuted. Besides you seem to have a rather pessimistic view of non home schooling environments.
The sources show that they have the same or better (on average) outcomes. It's not a panacea. Homeschoolers are not being restricted to a smaller range of ideas (a claim made with literally no evidence by someone who doesn't even know what is required to homeschool a child). This "critical thinking skills" argument is bullshit - walk into any public school in America and the teachers/administration/parents there will have the exact same worry. Homeschooling is an attempt to do BETTER than that by allowing completely individualized education in a 100% safe environment.
Source: I was homeschooled for a year because I was 2-3 grades ahead of my reading level and math skills. No public or affordable private school could accommodate my needs. We tried it but in the end my parents and I realized it was not for me, so I went back into the mainstream - I was still 2-3 grade levels ahead of my peers in every area, but we found a more accommodating school. I was top 2 in my class and 1500 on the old SAT, several 5 AP scores, etc etc. I've been working as a public school teacher for 5 years.
I was/am friends with lifelong homeschoolers who strong academic outcomes (the same or better than their local public school peers) and now lead productive, fulfilling lives. I have adult friends who homeschool their children that they love very much - they play sports with the local teams, do fundraisers and events with local businesses and charities, and I guaranfuckingtee that they have the same (or better) factual knowledge and critical thinking skills as their public school peers. They are almost exclusively religious families and none of them have specifically not-taught their children about evolution (they also vaccinate their children).
TL;DR: the issues you are citing about critical thinking skills and outcomes are issues that every school in every state is facing. It's definitely not a homeschooling exclusive issue.
Ignoring all of that - if I want to teach my kid that aliens are real and pork chops come from Satan (and will make you grow hair on your palms if you eat them), that's my own business, not the government's.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this castle mentality of the family isn't valid. what if you are beating your wife, for example, or committing some form of child abuse. measured in life outcome a bad education can lead to the same sort of bad outcome.
you've already said there are regulations for homeschooling, so this makes your last statement very much unargued for in the main post.
|
There are very few regulations for homeschooling in most places (it varies considerably from state to state), but across the board they are hands-off (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling_in_the_United_States#State_requirements). I don't think I need to argue the position that it's my right as a parent to teach my child whatever I want as long as it does not bring them to physical/emotional harm. The government does not get to decide what type of life outcome is preferable to another. If I want to homeschool my kid and guide them to a life of living in the woods, farming, and otherwise living off the land that is my prerogative. It's not the government's right to coerce me to do otherwise. You are arguing against the status quo, not me.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
government's right to do so and so is always an imperfect argument, a proxy for 'what is the desired outcome.' fact of the matter is the child deserves high quality education, and this is a children's right issue not a government right issue.
you are treating the child as some sort of attachment to your kingdom. this is just not going to work. if you are arguing for high quality homeschooling, okay. but detached from quality i do not see the sovereignty argument at all.
|
If I wasn't talking about America I'd probably agree with you, but we are so I don't. You cannot objectively define "high quality education."
It seems to be working just fine so far in America, so again you'll be needing to come up with a stronger argument than "Well I just don't agree with you."
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that's not really my argument. the argument is that your focus was on the quality of homeschooling then you pop out that last point which is not supported by anything you've argued before.
homeschooling has to be regulated and you need curriculum standards, or you can't even identify cases of failure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
