|
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. |
On April 21 2015 07:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:10 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 06:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2015 06:50 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 06:47 wei2coolman wrote:
Clean needles are a step towards the right direction. Plus I'm pretty sure like a single case of HIV treatment can probably pay off 10 years worth of free needles for like a bunch of people. It's just a financially responsible thing to do anyways. Money spent handing out free needles is money that would've been better spent on real rehab. It's opportunity cost. Any money headed towards handing out free needles is money that is not going towards a real solution. This has been argued repeatedly, but free needles are NOT perpetuating drug addictions. If a drug addict can't get free needles, he will not suddenly say "fuck it, I can't get a needle. Time to quit". He will just reuse an old one. In fact, he may do that anyway even if free clean needles are available. There are 2 separate goals here: 1. HIV prevention and/or treatment. 2. Drug abuse prevention. The initiative ONLY serves the former goal and has absolutely NO EFFECT on the latter. In the case of the former goal, it just makes sense. Rather than paying for anti-retrovirals for the rest of his life for even 1 patient, it is cheaper to pay for a needle exchange for ALL drug abusers. So if you're talking opportunity cost, that is it. Offering free rehab is great, and I am all for it, but it won't get drug abusers who deny they have a problem off the street (or using clean needles). Unless you want to force drug users to enter (free) rehab (and even if you do, that has also been shown not to work). You shouldn't pay for anti-retrovirals for someone who's gotten HIV from drug abuse. Just like how you don't give alcoholics a liver transplant. Doctors don't like to waste healthy livers on someone who's just going to drink the new one into oblivion. Paying for anti-retrovirals for heroin users is equally stupid. Whut? The reason you don't give a new liver to an alcoholic is because it is pointless: it will just get as fucked up as the old one (or more likely, the transplant won't even take, because the alcoholic is either going through withdrawal symptoms or flooding the new and fragile liver with poison). However, anti-retrovirals work rather differently from a liver transplant, and will stop HIV's progression to fullblown AIDS regardless of whether the patient is a schoolteacher or a homeless heroin addict. And no, using a second dirty needle won't make your HIV worse...
Why pay for anti-retrovirals for someone who did it to themselves though? It's fraud basically. Your insurance won't pay to fix your car if they know you were the one who smashed it up with a baseball bat.
Go ahead and help that schoolteacher who got HIV from a bad transfusion, but the heroin addict on the street gets no sympathy from me.
On April 21 2015 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:16 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2015 07:10 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 06:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2015 06:50 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 06:47 wei2coolman wrote:
Clean needles are a step towards the right direction. Plus I'm pretty sure like a single case of HIV treatment can probably pay off 10 years worth of free needles for like a bunch of people. It's just a financially responsible thing to do anyways. Money spent handing out free needles is money that would've been better spent on real rehab. It's opportunity cost. Any money headed towards handing out free needles is money that is not going towards a real solution. This has been argued repeatedly, but free needles are NOT perpetuating drug addictions. If a drug addict can't get free needles, he will not suddenly say "fuck it, I can't get a needle. Time to quit". He will just reuse an old one. In fact, he may do that anyway even if free clean needles are available. There are 2 separate goals here: 1. HIV prevention and/or treatment. 2. Drug abuse prevention. The initiative ONLY serves the former goal and has absolutely NO EFFECT on the latter. In the case of the former goal, it just makes sense. Rather than paying for anti-retrovirals for the rest of his life for even 1 patient, it is cheaper to pay for a needle exchange for ALL drug abusers. So if you're talking opportunity cost, that is it. Offering free rehab is great, and I am all for it, but it won't get drug abusers who deny they have a problem off the street (or using clean needles). Unless you want to force drug users to enter (free) rehab (and even if you do, that has also been shown not to work). You shouldn't pay for anti-retrovirals for someone who's gotten HIV from drug abuse. Just like how you don't give alcoholics a liver transplant. Doctors don't like to waste healthy livers on someone who's just going to drink the new one into oblivion. Paying for anti-retrovirals for heroin users is equally stupid. Whut? The reason you don't give a new liver to an alcoholic is because it is pointless: it will just get as fucked up as the old one (or more likely, the transplant won't even take, because the alcoholic is either going through withdrawal symptoms or flooding the new and fragile liver with poison). However, anti-retrovirals work rather differently from a liver transplant, and will stop HIV's progression to fullblown AIDS regardless of whether the patient is a schoolteacher or a homeless heroin addict. And no, using a second dirty needle won't make your HIV worse... Not to mention we can't really mass produce livers...
There is not infinite money either.
|
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one.
|
On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001
So giving this kid a transplant was morally good to you?
|
On April 21 2015 04:33 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 04:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2015 03:34 oneofthem wrote:On April 21 2015 03:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2015 01:47 oneofthem wrote:On April 21 2015 01:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2015 00:02 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2015 23:13 Aveng3r wrote:On April 20 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote:
progressivity without distributive motive is just a formula for burden sharing. right now we are not even at that. amount of tax avoidance and evasive action is high enough to place tax burden on the most stressed rather than on those with major wealth.
redistributive tax rates havent been seen for half a century and wont evr work given globalization of capital I don't get why so many posts in this thread contend that "the most financially stressed taxpayers pay more in taxes than the rich". on what grounds is this true? the claim was never 'pay more taxes' in absolute amount but in the form of higher rates and also higher burden in terms of impacting life. just based on reported income alone the top 0.1% pays under 25% effective rate, while a working professional would pay around 40%. The top marginal rate is ~40%. How are you getting that a working professional will be paying 40%? Have you ever filed taxes? effective tax rate jonny, including state taxes, payroll and ss. the largest disparity in effective tax burden basically comes down to the composition of income. those who have fairly high income, top 10% even, but have that income in the form of wages will face high tax rate. + Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/q4BMmVf.png) http://www.economics-finance.org/jefe/econ/Allenpaper2.pdftrash journal i know but the calculations are fairly simple. most state taxes such as property/excise are regressive, and payroll+fica are largely employee burdens. this chart is about 'marginal rate' which means, among other things, counting the loss of transfers in the lower ranges. so no poor people are not taxed at 40% they just face steep marginal effective tax given transfers. these rates should not be very different for present day given the presence of the AMT. but i was talking about working professionals earning 100k-200k in a major city. the amount oou get hit with at this range is pretty brutal. Marginal tax rates aren't your effective tax rates though, that's your effective rate on the next dollar you earn. Actual effective tax rates are much lower. To address your other post, effective tax rates as described by the IRS are going to be different from the CBO because of definitional differences. The CBO tries to get closer to reality, while the IRS goes strictly by tax law. This is important when you get into the top 0.1% and higher, since income will be split between multiple IRS taxpayers (C-corp and individual). the federal effective tax rate on upper middle class professionals is already 25-30%(http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42043.pdf), adding the state stuff and 40% is a fair estimate. the reason why some CBO estimate for effective tax rate is low is due to the counting rule of various deductibles, many of which are targeted at families. OK, I understand your 40% comment. Could you explain your top 0.1% pay 25% effective rate comment? Your cbo link seems to flatline after AGI hits $350K (fig 2), and that doesn't seem to include an allocation of corp taxes. well the top marginal rate for long term cap gains was at 15% for a long time and recently increased to 23.8%. without accounting for double taxation you'd get a figure like low 20% fairly easily, and if the person in question employs various deductions such as mortgage, charity etc it goes lower. the nature of cap gains income also allows flexible assignment of upfront vs deferred tax. the double taxation thing is real but there are some things to consider: 1. partnerships are not taxed at the entity level and cap gains income in partnerships (real estate, private equity etc) will pass through. so no double taxation here. 2. some corporations face very low effective tax rate. 3. cap gains tax at the wealth level relevant to the discussion about the 'super rich' has to looked at in combination with inheritance. a capital gain never realized does not flow into the tax system. there are lots of ways to increase this kind of 'death' tax shelter.
Equity should be double taxed even for pass-throughs. Business income will pass through to the owner's personal taxes, and capital gains will be taxed. So you still have a double taxation on equity income.
Yes some corps pay low taxes and some pay high taxes. I think the average in your paper was somewhere between 22 and 27% (estimated).
|
On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you?
Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes.
|
On April 21 2015 07:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:16 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2015 07:10 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 06:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2015 06:50 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 06:47 wei2coolman wrote:
Clean needles are a step towards the right direction. Plus I'm pretty sure like a single case of HIV treatment can probably pay off 10 years worth of free needles for like a bunch of people. It's just a financially responsible thing to do anyways. Money spent handing out free needles is money that would've been better spent on real rehab. It's opportunity cost. Any money headed towards handing out free needles is money that is not going towards a real solution. This has been argued repeatedly, but free needles are NOT perpetuating drug addictions. If a drug addict can't get free needles, he will not suddenly say "fuck it, I can't get a needle. Time to quit". He will just reuse an old one. In fact, he may do that anyway even if free clean needles are available. There are 2 separate goals here: 1. HIV prevention and/or treatment. 2. Drug abuse prevention. The initiative ONLY serves the former goal and has absolutely NO EFFECT on the latter. In the case of the former goal, it just makes sense. Rather than paying for anti-retrovirals for the rest of his life for even 1 patient, it is cheaper to pay for a needle exchange for ALL drug abusers. So if you're talking opportunity cost, that is it. Offering free rehab is great, and I am all for it, but it won't get drug abusers who deny they have a problem off the street (or using clean needles). Unless you want to force drug users to enter (free) rehab (and even if you do, that has also been shown not to work). You shouldn't pay for anti-retrovirals for someone who's gotten HIV from drug abuse. Just like how you don't give alcoholics a liver transplant. Doctors don't like to waste healthy livers on someone who's just going to drink the new one into oblivion. Paying for anti-retrovirals for heroin users is equally stupid. Whut? The reason you don't give a new liver to an alcoholic is because it is pointless: it will just get as fucked up as the old one (or more likely, the transplant won't even take, because the alcoholic is either going through withdrawal symptoms or flooding the new and fragile liver with poison). However, anti-retrovirals work rather differently from a liver transplant, and will stop HIV's progression to fullblown AIDS regardless of whether the patient is a schoolteacher or a homeless heroin addict. And no, using a second dirty needle won't make your HIV worse... Why pay for anti-retrovirals for someone who did it to themselves though? It's fraud basically. Your insurance won't pay to fix your car if they know you were the one who smashed it up with a baseball bat. Go ahead and help that schoolteacher who got HIV from a bad transfusion, but the heroin addict on the street gets no sympathy from me.
How about the pedestrian who jaywalked and got hit by a car?
How about the obese guy who got diabetes? (Amuricah is in deep shit now)
How about the guy who went into cardiac arrest because he overstressed his heart while exercising?
Skin cancer? (in almost all cases caused by too much sun)
When do we say something is simply a regular risk of living and treat it? Wherever you draw your arbitrary line, I can think of a case that gets excluded by it but probably shouldn't. So stop drawing arbitrary lines and give everybody the best help we can.
|
On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes.
15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult.
On April 21 2015 07:32 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:23 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:16 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2015 07:10 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 06:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2015 06:50 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 06:47 wei2coolman wrote:
Clean needles are a step towards the right direction. Plus I'm pretty sure like a single case of HIV treatment can probably pay off 10 years worth of free needles for like a bunch of people. It's just a financially responsible thing to do anyways. Money spent handing out free needles is money that would've been better spent on real rehab. It's opportunity cost. Any money headed towards handing out free needles is money that is not going towards a real solution. This has been argued repeatedly, but free needles are NOT perpetuating drug addictions. If a drug addict can't get free needles, he will not suddenly say "fuck it, I can't get a needle. Time to quit". He will just reuse an old one. In fact, he may do that anyway even if free clean needles are available. There are 2 separate goals here: 1. HIV prevention and/or treatment. 2. Drug abuse prevention. The initiative ONLY serves the former goal and has absolutely NO EFFECT on the latter. In the case of the former goal, it just makes sense. Rather than paying for anti-retrovirals for the rest of his life for even 1 patient, it is cheaper to pay for a needle exchange for ALL drug abusers. So if you're talking opportunity cost, that is it. Offering free rehab is great, and I am all for it, but it won't get drug abusers who deny they have a problem off the street (or using clean needles). Unless you want to force drug users to enter (free) rehab (and even if you do, that has also been shown not to work). You shouldn't pay for anti-retrovirals for someone who's gotten HIV from drug abuse. Just like how you don't give alcoholics a liver transplant. Doctors don't like to waste healthy livers on someone who's just going to drink the new one into oblivion. Paying for anti-retrovirals for heroin users is equally stupid. Whut? The reason you don't give a new liver to an alcoholic is because it is pointless: it will just get as fucked up as the old one (or more likely, the transplant won't even take, because the alcoholic is either going through withdrawal symptoms or flooding the new and fragile liver with poison). However, anti-retrovirals work rather differently from a liver transplant, and will stop HIV's progression to fullblown AIDS regardless of whether the patient is a schoolteacher or a homeless heroin addict. And no, using a second dirty needle won't make your HIV worse... Why pay for anti-retrovirals for someone who did it to themselves though? It's fraud basically. Your insurance won't pay to fix your car if they know you were the one who smashed it up with a baseball bat. Go ahead and help that schoolteacher who got HIV from a bad transfusion, but the heroin addict on the street gets no sympathy from me. How about the pedestrian who jaywalked and got hit by a car? How about the obese guy who got diabetes? (Amuricah is in deep shit now) How about the guy who went into cardiac arrest because he overstressed his heart while exercising? Skin cancer? (in almost all cases caused by too much sun) When do we say something is simply a regular risk of living and treat it? Wherever you draw your arbitrary line, I can think of a case that gets excluded by it but probably shouldn't. So stop drawing arbitrary lines and give everybody the best help we can.
Getting hit by a car is an accident. Going into cardiac arrest because you exercised too hard is an accident. Depends on how that obese person became obese. Shooting up heroin is negligence. You get HIV from heroin, it's your own fault.
|
On April 21 2015 07:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:16 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2015 07:10 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 06:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2015 06:50 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 06:47 wei2coolman wrote:
Clean needles are a step towards the right direction. Plus I'm pretty sure like a single case of HIV treatment can probably pay off 10 years worth of free needles for like a bunch of people. It's just a financially responsible thing to do anyways. Money spent handing out free needles is money that would've been better spent on real rehab. It's opportunity cost. Any money headed towards handing out free needles is money that is not going towards a real solution. This has been argued repeatedly, but free needles are NOT perpetuating drug addictions. If a drug addict can't get free needles, he will not suddenly say "fuck it, I can't get a needle. Time to quit". He will just reuse an old one. In fact, he may do that anyway even if free clean needles are available. There are 2 separate goals here: 1. HIV prevention and/or treatment. 2. Drug abuse prevention. The initiative ONLY serves the former goal and has absolutely NO EFFECT on the latter. In the case of the former goal, it just makes sense. Rather than paying for anti-retrovirals for the rest of his life for even 1 patient, it is cheaper to pay for a needle exchange for ALL drug abusers. So if you're talking opportunity cost, that is it. Offering free rehab is great, and I am all for it, but it won't get drug abusers who deny they have a problem off the street (or using clean needles). Unless you want to force drug users to enter (free) rehab (and even if you do, that has also been shown not to work). You shouldn't pay for anti-retrovirals for someone who's gotten HIV from drug abuse. Just like how you don't give alcoholics a liver transplant. Doctors don't like to waste healthy livers on someone who's just going to drink the new one into oblivion. Paying for anti-retrovirals for heroin users is equally stupid. Whut? The reason you don't give a new liver to an alcoholic is because it is pointless: it will just get as fucked up as the old one (or more likely, the transplant won't even take, because the alcoholic is either going through withdrawal symptoms or flooding the new and fragile liver with poison). However, anti-retrovirals work rather differently from a liver transplant, and will stop HIV's progression to fullblown AIDS regardless of whether the patient is a schoolteacher or a homeless heroin addict. And no, using a second dirty needle won't make your HIV worse... Why pay for anti-retrovirals for someone who did it to themselves though? It's fraud basically. Your insurance won't pay to fix your car if they know you were the one who smashed it up with a baseball bat. Go ahead and help that schoolteacher who got HIV from a bad transfusion, but the heroin addict on the street gets no sympathy from me. Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2015 07:16 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2015 07:10 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 06:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2015 06:50 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 06:47 wei2coolman wrote:
Clean needles are a step towards the right direction. Plus I'm pretty sure like a single case of HIV treatment can probably pay off 10 years worth of free needles for like a bunch of people. It's just a financially responsible thing to do anyways. Money spent handing out free needles is money that would've been better spent on real rehab. It's opportunity cost. Any money headed towards handing out free needles is money that is not going towards a real solution. This has been argued repeatedly, but free needles are NOT perpetuating drug addictions. If a drug addict can't get free needles, he will not suddenly say "fuck it, I can't get a needle. Time to quit". He will just reuse an old one. In fact, he may do that anyway even if free clean needles are available. There are 2 separate goals here: 1. HIV prevention and/or treatment. 2. Drug abuse prevention. The initiative ONLY serves the former goal and has absolutely NO EFFECT on the latter. In the case of the former goal, it just makes sense. Rather than paying for anti-retrovirals for the rest of his life for even 1 patient, it is cheaper to pay for a needle exchange for ALL drug abusers. So if you're talking opportunity cost, that is it. Offering free rehab is great, and I am all for it, but it won't get drug abusers who deny they have a problem off the street (or using clean needles). Unless you want to force drug users to enter (free) rehab (and even if you do, that has also been shown not to work). You shouldn't pay for anti-retrovirals for someone who's gotten HIV from drug abuse. Just like how you don't give alcoholics a liver transplant. Doctors don't like to waste healthy livers on someone who's just going to drink the new one into oblivion. Paying for anti-retrovirals for heroin users is equally stupid. Whut? The reason you don't give a new liver to an alcoholic is because it is pointless: it will just get as fucked up as the old one (or more likely, the transplant won't even take, because the alcoholic is either going through withdrawal symptoms or flooding the new and fragile liver with poison). However, anti-retrovirals work rather differently from a liver transplant, and will stop HIV's progression to fullblown AIDS regardless of whether the patient is a schoolteacher or a homeless heroin addict. And no, using a second dirty needle won't make your HIV worse... Not to mention we can't really mass produce livers... There is not infinite money either.
that's exactly why we should fund clean needles
|
Your trying to argue morality with someone who's argument is "They should die in the streets". I don't think your going to find a lot of success or common ground.
|
On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid a transplant was morally good to you?
Yes.
|
On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult.
So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded.
Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now.
You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen.
Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position.
|
On April 21 2015 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded. Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now. You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen. Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position.
In this case it's a risk assessment, and if they have another recipient, I could definitely understand in this situation not giving the kid a heart transplant.
|
On April 21 2015 07:39 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded. Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now. You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen. Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position. In this case it's a risk assessment, and if they have another recipient, I could definitely understand in this situation not giving the kid a heart transplant.
Unless that person is also a child I don't. If anyone deserves a new lease on life its a kid. They might piss it away, anyone might piss away a second chance. But a kid deserves another roll of the dice.
|
On April 21 2015 07:39 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded. Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now. You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen. Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position. In this case it's a risk assessment, and if they have another recipient, I could definitely understand in this situation not giving the kid a heart transplant.
If I understand the case correctly, at 15 he hadn't done much wrong. He had gotten in some fights and had gotten low grades at school. That is hardly a reason to deny someone a shot at life.
|
On April 21 2015 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded. Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now. You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen. Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position.
They already make those judgements though. The transplant waiting list takes into account your history. And not just your medical history either.
Like I already said, 15 is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult.
On April 21 2015 07:42 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:39 wei2coolman wrote:On April 21 2015 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded. Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now. You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen. Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position. In this case it's a risk assessment, and if they have another recipient, I could definitely understand in this situation not giving the kid a heart transplant. If I understand the case correctly, at 15 he hadn't done much wrong. He had gotten in some fights and had gotten low grades at school. That is hardly a reason to deny someone a shot at life.
They were bad enough fights that he was under house arrest.
|
On April 21 2015 07:33 Gorsameth wrote:
Your trying to argue morality with someone who's argument is "They should die in the streets". I don't think your going to find a lot of success or common ground.
Milli's morality is a bit of an enigma. Constantly complaining about the government wasting money while he gets paid by the government to sit here and have these discussions instead of working a productive job. The easiest and least hypocritical thing he could do is stop leeching money he doesn't need from the government and get a job. Instead he sits here being the problem he complains about (someone taking money from the government who doesn't need it and shouldn't get it).
Although I think his positions are heavily undermined by his actual life, I give him credit for at least not ignoring the obvious potential remedies like single-payer or free rehab.
|
On April 21 2015 07:42 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded. Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now. You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen. Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position. They already make those judgements though. The transplant waiting list takes into account your history. And not just your medical history either. Like I already said, 15 is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:42 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2015 07:39 wei2coolman wrote:On April 21 2015 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded. Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now. You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen. Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position. In this case it's a risk assessment, and if they have another recipient, I could definitely understand in this situation not giving the kid a heart transplant. If I understand the case correctly, at 15 he hadn't done much wrong. He had gotten in some fights and had gotten low grades at school. That is hardly a reason to deny someone a shot at life. They were bad enough fights that he was under house arrest.
Doctors do (should) not take your conduct into account except insofar as it could indicate that you will not benefit from the transplant (because it indicates that you won't take your immunosuppressants or show up for followup)... not because you will use your second chance at life to do something bad.
In the US, a criminal record is not grounds for refusing transplant.
|
On April 21 2015 07:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:42 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded. Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now. You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen. Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position. They already make those judgements though. The transplant waiting list takes into account your history. And not just your medical history either. Like I already said, 15 is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. On April 21 2015 07:42 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2015 07:39 wei2coolman wrote:On April 21 2015 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded. Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now. You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen. Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position. In this case it's a risk assessment, and if they have another recipient, I could definitely understand in this situation not giving the kid a heart transplant. If I understand the case correctly, at 15 he hadn't done much wrong. He had gotten in some fights and had gotten low grades at school. That is hardly a reason to deny someone a shot at life. They were bad enough fights that he was under house arrest. Doctors do (should) not take your conduct into account except insofar as it could indicate that you will not benefit from the transplant (because it indicates that you won't take your immunosuppressants or show up for followup)... not because you will use your second chance at life to do something bad. In the US, a criminal record is not grounds for refusing transplant.
It is. It depends on the clinic. Not all will refuse based on criminal record, but some will.
|
On April 21 2015 07:49 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 07:42 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded. Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now. You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen. Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position. They already make those judgements though. The transplant waiting list takes into account your history. And not just your medical history either. Like I already said, 15 is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. On April 21 2015 07:42 Acrofales wrote:On April 21 2015 07:39 wei2coolman wrote:On April 21 2015 07:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:32 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:On April 21 2015 07:29 Millitron wrote:On April 21 2015 07:25 Acrofales wrote:
Read up a bit on liver transplants to alcoholics. The reason for the 6 month abstinence seems to be that the liver can actually recover on its own if not being constantly flooded with poison. If after 6 months the liver has not recovered, then you are eligible for a transplant (in most countries/situations).
Of course, if your liver is so totally fucked that it doesn't recover in 6 months, you probably don't even live that long, so it comes with its own set of ethical problems, but the main reason liver transplants are denied alcoholics does not seem to be some kind of moral judgement, but rather a medical one. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/anthony-stokes-teen-who-got-heart-transplant-dies-car-chase-n334001So giving this kid was morally good to you? Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is a morally good idea, yes. 15 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. Had he lived, he would've been tried as an adult. So we're going to make doctors judge jury and executioner for people? That is fucking retarded. Sorry kid, we don't feel you've made the right decisions, we're not giving you cancer treatment. You'll get no chance to straighten your life out, no compassion will be shown. You're a fucking dead man now. You've got to be the most vindictive person I've ever seen. Giving a 15 year old child a heart transplant is objectively the moral position. In this case it's a risk assessment, and if they have another recipient, I could definitely understand in this situation not giving the kid a heart transplant. If I understand the case correctly, at 15 he hadn't done much wrong. He had gotten in some fights and had gotten low grades at school. That is hardly a reason to deny someone a shot at life. They were bad enough fights that he was under house arrest. Doctors do (should) not take your conduct into account except insofar as it could indicate that you will not benefit from the transplant (because it indicates that you won't take your immunosuppressants or show up for followup)... not because you will use your second chance at life to do something bad. In the US, a criminal record is not grounds for refusing transplant.
Which is the case and justification given in this situation.
|
WASHINGTON, April 20 (Reuters) - Billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, the influential conservative donors, have settled on Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker as their top choice to win the 2016 Republican nomination for U.S. president, the New York Times reported on Monday.
David Koch said at a fundraiser for the New York State Republican Party on Monday that he and his brother would support the party's eventual nominee in the general election, but that it should be Walker, the paper reported, citing two people in attendance.
The Koch brothers are among the best-known conservative donors, and potential Republican candidates court their favor. The pair has said they plan to spend nearly $900 million during the 2016 campaign cycle.
Walker already has allied himself with the more conservative wing of his party, making statements such as saying he would not support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Those moves were intended to set Walker apart from others in the Republican field, particularly former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who has an advantage in national name recognition and fundraising over many other possible 2016 contenders.
It was not clear how much the Kochs planned to help Walker with his primary run, the Times said.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
