Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 6, 2012.
I rest my case. Thanks for playing.
Did you just edit a quote into your own post, and then quote the edit that you, yourself made in your post? That's a new one to be sure. Maybe it will start a new precedent?
But I'm not making this about you. But if you say in a different topic "A business owner has the right to define behavior in their store" in one thread, and then turn around in another thread and say the exact opposite...That's inconsistent, and at least deserves an explanation.
I'm not putting you on ignore. Just let me know when you're ready to discuss the actual topic again. Or declare an impasse if there's nothing else to discuss. It's cool, I don't care.
But while the librarian question was fair just as Vaderize's medical questions were fair...the direction you are attempting to steer this is about me, not the topic.
And I'm not going to play.
Ok, well the sandbox is still here when you're ready to play again.
This is completely absurd. In the first place, we have never been discussing a scenario where a pharmacist simply does not have a drug available. You've repeatedly tried to conflate the issue, and every single time we've clarified that this is not anyone's concern. What we are actually talking about is a number of specific instances where pharmacists have pre-emptively and publicly declared their complete refusal to fill certain prescriptions for reasons that they admit have nothing to do with their professional judgment and are centered entirely on their personal moral beliefs. Those are two very different situations. Further, as you have never addressed, it is a difference that would be worth getting upset over. The pharmacist is creating a barrier to healthcare by projecting their personal ideals onto patients. In fact, healthcare ethics includes the ideas of both maximizing access to care and minimizing the extent to which practitioners interject their personal, non-medical opinions about patients. By contrast, the fact that some things will be in shortage/out of stock is a reality so long as we live in a finite universe. You might disagree, but you are being radically disingenuous to pretend AG Obama can't point to clear facts of each encounter that dictates the divergent response to each.
Furthermore, your "big government/free market" homilies aren't really sensible here at all. We are, again, not talking about innocent businessmen being whisked off to black sites for daring to make choices. We're talking about pharmacists who want to violate their own professional ethics to deny patient's access to care. Beyond this, they have then sought complete legal immunity from their actions, no matter how steadfast their refusal or the scope of its consequences. That is, this has never been about just letting professional organizations self-regulate. This is about certain pharmacists attempting to impair the regulatory ability of their licensing bodies and professional organizations.
Finally, for reference, here is ethical statement from the American Pharmacists Association.
Emphasis mine. How is "respectful of personal differences" to tell someone that they can't have a birth control pill because the pharmacist thinks they a bad person for having had sex? Also, people note the language stressing a "covenant" between the pharmacist and patient. You ever notice how other types of business don't have that? How they don't refer to customers as patients? It's because, as Vaderize has said in literally every post, healthcare is different. It has always been different. This is a fundamental point, recognized in every culture for millennia. It's as old as the oldest of these professions. I think you ought to reconsider your position, given that it's entire basis is treating pharmacies as equivalent to hardware stores or fish markets.
Finally to illustrate our point yet again, how would you respond to this situation. The front page article of the Washington Post's March 28, 2005 edition records an incident where a pharmacist refused to provide a morning-after pill to happily married mother of four. Further, he literally seized the prescription from her and refused to return it, making it impossible for her to ever get it filled.
These things happen. They are real. We aren't just having some weird, abstracted debate here. You are putting a real burden on actual human beings with the unlimited conscience policies you support. Why?
I admit I skimmed the rest of your post, but you did ask how would I respond to this situation. I'd respond honestly that it is the type of silly, one-shot example that only applied to its own circumstance back in 2005. But I think you already knew that. Let's see. In a nutshell, that guy should have been arrested for assault. Maybe battery depending on the extent of the grabbing of the prescription. Probably theft depending on how controlled the actual prescription form was. In your mind, the only 2 choices for this topic are either filling prescriptions or breaking fundamental criminal statutes and nothing falls in between?
Clearly, the question of "why can't a pharmacist choose not to sell something, and simply refer customers to the store that does" is answered by the above example.
How would you respond if I told you I once walked into store to buy pants, and the sales clerk pulled out a knife and stabbed me in the knee cap? That's a universal example on the folly of even wearing pants, right?
A. I assume you'll do us all the courtesy of reading the rest of the post at some point in the future.
B. We're discussing whether there should be any legal requirements for pharmacies in terms of providing prescriptions. Your argument is that there should be none at all. That's very relevant because it leaves the woman in the aforementioned incident with no real legal recourse. It's not illegal for the pharmacist to refuse the prescription. It's not illegal for him to refuse to refer her to another pharmacist. Nor are they under any obligation to give you back the original script.
Of course, most pharmacists would've done any or all of those things. It is in accordance with the ethics of pharmacists. But this one pharmacist chose not to, because he held his personal morals as more important. And in this case, according to the legal viewpoint you support, he did absolutely nothing wrong and would not be responsible for anything. How exactly can we stop things like this from happening if it's not against any sort of rules?
For those who say voter ID laws and cross-checking is not necessary, here are some stats from North Carolina:
Over 35,000 people in the state were identified as being registered to vote in both North Carolina and another state in the 2012 election, and at least 716 voted.
North Carolina's Voter Integrity Project (VIP) has discovered over 20,000 people registered to vote at false addresses.
13,476 deceased people were on the voting rolls, 81 of whom somehow came back to life.
Furthermore, the NAACP has recently been demanding that VIP hand over lists of supporters, echoing the actions of segregationist governors in the 1960s. Incidentally, under the controlling legal authority of NAACP v. Alabama, the NAACP's demands are blatantly illegal.
The Voter ID laws are necessary, as is a nation-wide crosschecking to eliminate duplicate registrations, as well as registration from those who are deceased. At Accuracy in Media, there were reports of other irregularities.
So do you have a link to those statistics that aren't from a bunch of transparently biased sources or would requests for impartial data be discrimination?
716 out of 35000 is 2% of those who are registered twice.
I'm quite certain out of those officially eligible to vote this number will become so marginal as to be none existent.
Personally I wouldn't be too worried. Unless of course those 716 people were Black or not Republican then I'm sure you have a problem.
LOL, no way in hell am I taking "North Carolina's Conservative Voice" as an unbiased source of statistics.
Suck it, atheists!
So this is interesting. Incumbent Hawaii governor Neil Abercrombie, who had an endorsement from the White House - lost his Democratic primary for re-election by 35%.
Tax hike and ran afoul of his unions.
Eh, not that exciting. Hawaii is mostly deep blue.
There's still Lt. Governor Fitch.
Didn't say anything about a party change, V03.
It is quite rare for a sitting governor to lose his primary by 35%, especially when he has been involved in Hawaii politics for decades.
u mad at the naacp lol
Abercrombie also didn't appoint who Inouye wanted as his successor, when he died. But Inouye wasn't the best Senator (even if a war hero) and loved getting pork for his state, and Hanabusa (who he wanted) has seemed a little like Palin. So Abercrombie appointed Schatz instead, which made him more unpopular. Schatz's primary is too close to call right now.
Also interesting because this primary was right after Hawaii's earthquake and hurricane, so I wonder what turnout was like.
No, no. He caught us. We may as well come clean. The only reason Barack Obama won Ohio in 2012 is thanks to an ultra-elite squad of 166,000 people all sworn to complete secrecy who we arranged to have vote simultaneously in all 50 states of the Union, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa, in order to bolster our chances in November. It was all going so flawlessly, too.
Neither did I.
I just happen to find primary losses in non-competitive states relatively uninteresting, that's all.
And it sounds like the governor had quite a few skeletons.
Let's, for the moment, take this at face value and believe it for a second.
If those numbers are true, we're talking about provable fraud at 81 people. Which are the dead people.
Assume for the moment that you also have 716 people (and they didn't just, you know, change addresses over the course of the year) for dual-registration of states (noting, of course, that even among people with multiple state registries this works out to 3.58% of just that number).
And let's be overly generous and say that 50% of the people registering at "false addresses" are fakers and not paranoid wingnuts or anything like that, so another 10,000 people.
That's a total voter fraud of 10,797 people.
Or, you know, less than 1/10 of one percent of the entire state of North Carolina.
So, yes, totally not an issue even if we accept any of that as true. I'd count only the true fraud (81) as being possibly likely. In a state of almost 10 million people.
Disproportionately affecting low-income, minority voters in any state would need that count to be somewhere like 20% of the state vote before it even becomes more than laughable.
So, I don't know if this will go down as one of the gutsiest moves in political history, or one of the most stupid:
Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama's foreign policy 'failure'; strongly defends Israel. Great nations need organizing principles, and "Don't do stupid stuff" is not an organizing principle,' the former secretary of state says.
Ahead of a possible presidential run, Hillary Clinton appears to be distancing herself from what she called President Barack Obama's foreign policy "failure": the decision not to intervene during the early stages of the Syrian civil war. In an interview with the Atlantic published on Sunday, the former secretary of state says the "failure" of the United States to help those protesting the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad led to the rise of al-Qaida-inspired groups like ISIL, the militants currently creating havoc in Syria and Iraq. “One of the reasons why I worry about what’s happening in the Middle East right now is because of the breakout capacity of jihadist groups that can affect Europe, can affect the United States,” she continued. “Jihadist groups are governing territory. They will never stay there, though. They are driven to expand. Their raison d’etre is to be against the West, against the Crusaders, against the fill-in-the-blank — and we all fit into one of these categories.
Commenting on another Middle East conflict — the war in Gaza between Hamas and Israel — Clinton strongly defended Israel. There’s no doubt in my mind that Hamas initiated this conflict," she added. "So the ultimate responsibility has to rest on Hamas and the decisions it made.”
Now, approval of Obama's foreign policy has been in the toilet lately. But for me, I actually supported the move to drop humanitarian supplies in Iraq, even if the air strikes aren't going to be all that effective. But holy crap, Clinton's slam of the President is more harsh than anything a republican candidate could come up with. It's certainly a shot across the bow type of position. The parts that I bolded represent some of the most "us vs them" focused statements I have seen since Bush was President. As for Hamas, well, I guess her negotiating platform for the region is pretty clear.
More of future importance to Clinton, it has an air of opportunism to it. What Clinton just opened up a can of worms over is that she was the Secretary of State up until 8 months ago. Did she push for any intervention in Syria? If she had such doubts over the President's foreign policy, how come she held her criticism until now?
There's a somewhat "implied criticism" there though, isn't there? As in "that's why I stepped down?"
But also, realistically the nut graf of this piece was the part on Israel -- and she pretty roundly apparently doesn't like what Kerry's doing.
yeah, I suppose that's true. I was referring to the near complete "either with me or against me" tone that's risky since she hasn't even declared that she is running. It certainly highlights her as an alternative to the current administration, but it may alienate all the wrong people. Talking about how Jihadists are out to get the West and have to be stopped is something I'd expect out of Karl Rove, not Hillary Clinton. It definitely narrows down a potential targeted US policy.
You absolutely, positively don't recall the Right's favorite attack line on her husband then.
She's just heading that off at the pass (though her record as Senator was already pretty spotless in this regard).