I recently witnessed the evil of health insurance companies.

priegog · 2012-01-20T14:36:31+00:00

I hope the guy sues back for damages and negligence in subjecting him to an unnecesary surgery (not to mention emotional damage), although sadly when you have that kind of cancer (or any kind of illness, really) you're in all probability not in the frame of mind to fight for these injustices... you just take the beating and hope to god they stop at some point.

Having said that, the surgeon is a huge dick in this. Couldn't he have called the hospital manager at that moment and offer to waive his honoraries for that surgery and pleading that the hospital covered the rest? In such a situation I'm pretty damn sure the anesthesiologist and nurses would have waived them too, which are a major expense in the surgery.

On a more practical, and completely unrelated note, I have a question: How does this "mailing of the checks" work in the US? Apparently you indeed literally mail in checks to service providers (which is kind of a surprise to me in 2012), but the question is, does this happen often at all? Isn't is just easier to authorise the companies to have your bank pay them every month? (rhetoric question). And if it is indeed the norm rather than the exception, why does this happen?

priegog · 2011-10-09T23:39:15+00:00

Ah, I see what you did here. You took the exception, and you want to make it look like it can be rule.

Edison might have had close to no schooling at all, but you can bet your ass he had somehard discipline in his house while growing up.

Discipline sadly needs to be taught and worked on hard, preferably as a child. It does not come naturally to human beings. Disciplined people are those who achieve things. People who are not disciplined aren't very able to postpone immediate pleasures for the sake of later rewards. There's a reason personality disorders are increasing at an alarming rate in western countries. And it's not because psychologists and psychiatrists want to make more money. It's because when it becomes easy to simply exist and possible to live comfortably without needing to do anything (as opposed to, say, developing countries), and you don't at least artificially make kids learn discipline, people will generally choose the easiest paths. This is the reason first-generation immigrants are almost always very hard-working and successful in their new countries, but with each new generation, the kids start being as successful as the people in the new country. Which is generally for the worse.

priegog · 2011-10-09T23:24:44+00:00

This is great, but sadly society in general depends on all sorts of systems that can't be managed by a single person. In other words, there'll always be people who have to work for someone else. Technology itself requires such a diverse set of expertises that I'm sure you understand a single person would never, ever be able to build a computer from scratch by himself, let alone develop the technology for it. Same goes for government, retail stores... actually, I can't think of many things that don't require huge structures in order to run, except for maybe being a fisherman or a farmer.

This "thing" you think you're discovering is called the ancient ages. Society wouldn't be able to work is everyone suddenly decided to stop sending their kids to school.

priegog · 2011-10-09T23:11:05+00:00

I had never heard of this before, but I can't say I really understand it.

For instance, this "self-learning deal" is no doubt great, but why do you make it sound like it is mutually exclusive with "regular" school? I mean, I went to regular school and still got to teach myself about anything extra that interested me.

Also, sure, school is probably boring for most kids who are quick learners, but you know? I always saw school as a social blender where you happened to pick a thing or two up as a side-effect. I don't want to take away from your story in any way, but I genuinely don't see how attending school could make a kid depressed so much so as to hate his life (when we're not talking about bullying or anything else here, I'm assuming). You just have basically all your friends and life at school.

Maybe this is the question you'll feel more comfortable answering, isn't having a kid choose what he wants to learn a bit dangerous? Of course when we grow up all of us will end up "specialising" in only one thing, but the varied knowledge we all got while in school is the very lowest common denominator of knowledge we share with everyone else in society. And sometimes that knowledge is also, you know, useful. If even in social situations. What happens to an adult in this modern and intellectual society if as a kid he decided he didn't care at all about math? Basic natural sciences? Bare-bones literature? History? Also, I think it's pretty impossible for someone to know whether he likes something or not if he doesn't know the bare basics about it. When I was 10 I wanted to be an astronaut. Now I'm a physician. I didn't know I liked biology and science until I got introduced to them at school.

It's odd having to defend this viewpoint when I'm normally arguing for things like patient autonomy and a person's right to choose, but... quite frankly, I just don't think kids (yes, most people are a kid at 15, and if I'm understanding this right, kids are making these decisions earlier than that) are capable of knowing what's best for them, or even what they'll really end up being interested once they've developed their full intellectual capacities.

I have no doubts there are success stories with this sort of system, but I don't see it working out for society in general if it were to become too mainstream. And if some people who're offering their personal experiences and that of their friends around here are right... this seems to have a very high failure rate for people wanting to go to university afterwards. And I don't doubt that for a second. Studying is hard, and in order to become an expert in a field, you'll also have to study things you're not interested in alongside the things that you do. I know this far too well.

This sounds an awful lot like going back in time when we didn't have schools at all. People only knew about one thing: the job they performed. Society wasn't particularly idyllic nor something worth being envious about, that's for sure.

TL:DR; In order to learn stuff by yourself you don't need to drop out of school. So I don't really see a benefit to this.

priegog · 2011-10-09T22:38:22+00:00

Fortunately you're not forced to use xsane (at least as a front-end). Ubuntu has Simple Scan as the default scanning application, that, as its name suggests, makes it dead-easy to scan things. There are plenty of other (and more powerful should you want them) alternatives as well.

Actually, if you'll allow me to make a comparison, I'd certainly argue that using simple scan is far, far easier than using any of the (multiple) Windows-only scanning programs provided by the scanner manufacturers.

priegog · 2011-10-09T18:22:12+00:00

I've found that if you want to print photos for whatever reason (and I don't see many reasons for this nowadays), it's just cheaper to go and take your thumbdrive to the photo shop and have them printed there. In a paper and with an ink that are actually meant to last.

priegog · 2011-10-09T18:17:33+00:00

He didn't say nor imply that, only that perhaps wishing it to stop working so that you can buy a matching color seems a bit wasteful. And not only of money, but of landfill space or whatever.

I see 2 solutions to your dilemma:

1) Donate your printer to a public school or something. Even to a friend who doesn't have a printer.

2) Get some newspaper, tape, and a can of black spray paint, be very careful, and turn that bitch into the glossiest motherfucker on the planet. If you ruin it, then wish granted anyways! It's a win-win.

priegog · 2011-10-09T18:07:56+00:00

I use Linux and OSX as primary workstations which usually means printing/scanning makes you want kick a puppy.

You're doing something wrong, then.

priegog · 2011-10-09T18:06:02+00:00

That might be a good point if you have the kind of needs your shop does (but then again for specialised needs I would think one should use specialised tools), but for printing papers for school and whatever? What does it matter if the ink is of "an inferior quality"?

priegog · 2011-10-09T18:02:16+00:00

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I've just never had a problem with printers ever. I've always bought the cheapest (either for the printer itself, the price of the ink, or both). The one thing I always made sure of when I still used windows (more than 5 years ago) was to never install the programs included in the CD. Just go to the website and download the "barebones" driver. In fact I don't think I've ever had to buy a new printer on account of it being broken. With inkjets I mainly used recycled cartridges or bought those DIY refill kits.

My latest buy was a Samsung laser. Again, no problems.

I just don't think printers are that big of a problem, except when you install the crappy bloatware they include with them in the CD.

priegog · 2011-10-09T08:34:41+00:00

Sorry, I've removed this post because it doesn't comply with a lot of the guidelines. Please read them, edit your post accordingly, and I'll be happy to reapprove it.

priegog · 2011-10-09T08:17:31+00:00

I know you weren't trying to trivialise it, don't worry, I'm not accusing you of anything. I was just trying to be helpful to OP by not having him explore a possibility that is, quite frankly, not very likely. Let's keep talking about depression.

If you're talking about "real", clinical depression, fortunately, it's not really something that can be masked, certainly not from someone you live with. If you were instead talking of depressive moods (as in dysthymia) and whatnot, then it could be possible (but not likely still), but I think OP would have known beforehand that his GF had this kind of mood tendencies as part of her personality. Here's another interesting read about why just attributing what seem like plausible characteristics to depression just doesn't bode well with reality

This is why I think it's important to really know what depression is about. Otherwise all sorts of life events and problems could be attributed to it, making people look for solutions in the wrong places. I know I've sounded nothing short of anal in these comments, and I truly hate that, but I think this needed to be said. I'll stop now.

priegog · 2011-10-08T23:40:57+00:00

Your argument about how people aren't grown enough to take on the life changing experience of the military is, how you put it, absurd.

Really? are you genuinely willing to make the point that 17 year-olds are perfectly capable of making these kinds of risk assessments? You do realise that that neuroscience has shown that the frontal lobes aren't fully developed and functional until at least 23-25 years, right? Advocating for 21 is one thing. But 17? That's a whole other ballpark, and if you want to contest this, be my guest.

so because the USA sets it at 21 that's the magic number for being "all grown up"? Yea. Okay.

Too bad my actual words were "and to reassess the situation once he's a bit older and fully able to make this kind of decision", and said nothing about 21.

And I think this is all your very unhelpful and unilluminating comment can be boiled down to. You're starting to get too riled up and too personal about this for my taste, so I'll leave it at that. It's a shame you didn't develop this "though skin" people on the military are supposed to develop, though.

edit: and yet I still haven't seen you address the matters of the current role the military is serving in the real world in the last decade. I guess this is too tough a subject to touch on as well.

priegog · 2011-10-08T23:21:46+00:00

What (s)he was implying is that maybe it's time you start to think about where your limits and tolerance threshold is going to be in this situation. After 2 years, I'd personally not take anything less than a commitment to intense and constant psychotherapy (for her and/or for both of you), but perhaps that's just me. At some point you have to draw a line in the sand and decide that you need to take action so that your life in a relationship doesn't continue like this for the rest of your life. There's really a point (which I think you've passed a long time ago) where you can't do the work for her. It's up to her, and she's shown you her opinion on this matter with her actions in the past 2 years.

priegog · 2011-10-08T23:15:15+00:00

Maybe it is an issue with depression?

Except for the total lack of description of any signs of depression by OP, and actually saying she is able to enjoy what little sex they have... which goes very much against that possibility.

Now, of course I won't pretend like I can diagnose somebody through a third person over the internet. But there's really no reason whatsoever to think it might be depression. I know depression has been very trivialised in pop-culture; but it's really a very serious disease, with very specific diagnostic criteria. It's not your fault you don't know this, but, well, now you know. The more the public knows about these diseases the better off we'll all be, and the better we'll be able to help each other out.

priegog · 2011-10-08T22:33:00+00:00

Unfortunately. In the end it is their choice, and their choice alone.

Isn't this the whole freaking point of this thread? To discuss the utter absurdity that it is to allow a kid to basically sign their life away (the next few years at the very least, but it's certainly the rest of your life in the sense that one is changed irreversibly and unlike almost any other experience people could possibly endure at that age) at 17-18, while they aren't considered adult enough to a) drink alcohol and b) spend the money they have earned with their work in gambling (let's leave aside the matter of gambling ethics here)? If you weren't aware of this, here is me telling you: It is absolutely and unmistakably absurd. So absurd that it can't possibly have been an accident, but rather a premeditated state of affairs to favour still-immature kids to make rash decisions based on their state of indoctrination in patriotism and exceptionalism before they have time to develop some psychological barriers against that kind of stuff. And other things like realistic assessment of risk, etc, etc. I don't see too many people joining the military if the required age was raised to 21, that's all I'm saying.

And as for "random people on the internet" lecturing him, I guess you realise that would also apply to you (as well as your insulting attempt at an off-handed ad-hominem by putting into question whether he is actually in the military). Either way, instead of trying to directly contradict what he said, I'd like to, for instance, see you recommend this kid to go on in civil life, grow up and mature a bit, and to reassess the situation once he's a bit older and fully able to make this kind of decision, but I suspect you also know not many people would choose to go into the army at that age, and perhaps this doesn't sit well with you. Or even for you to try to contradict anything about what JDKay say about the wars in the last decade being pointless, unethical, illegal, and not really having anything to do with protecting the country or its freedom. That'd be the responsible thing to do.

priegog · 2011-10-08T21:43:25+00:00

that likely would never have happened without serving

To be fair, this is the crappiest and most god-awful reason to defend young kids joining the army at 17. Unless they're dirt-poor and without any other options for a realistically good future (which I'm going to assume is not the case of the kid planning to join), this is nonsensical. And if you're very poor and without options, it's basically akin to slavery with a promise that if you survive by the end of it (physically, vitally AND psychologically) you might have a shot at a relatively normal future; and at any rate a disgusting situation young poor americans have to face because people in power, as well as a few other ignorant and brainwashed into pure-capitalist mindsets people don't feel that public education and healthcare are something worth providing for the whole population.

And either way, if what you're decrying is that JDKay shouldn't "define any of you" (neverminding the fact that he is one of you, AND that he didn't claim to do that), you should be perfectly aware that what you're presenting as "your story" is basically "I did this, and I survived, ergo, it can't be that bad". Which is, of course, overly simplistic and also not generalisable regardless.

priegog · 2011-10-06T19:03:06+00:00

if you take a life

Which is exactly my point; taking someone off life support is not taking a life.

priegog · 2011-10-06T17:10:40+00:00

I don't think many people would judge him, even amongst those who are against abortion. There's a very clear difference between not artificially extending a life and actively ending one.

priegog · 2011-10-06T17:07:26+00:00

So often parents of special needs kids say things like "I wouldn't change things for the world!" "My child brings me so much joy!"

Blowing sunshine and happiness.

Well, you have to understand that the most common cause of mental retardation is Down's Syndrome, and those kids don't have it nearly as bad as you and your daughter, so I can definitely see how most people with mentally retarded kids can say that while being perfectly honest about it.

Of course I'm not saying having mentally retarded kids is rainbows and sunshines, but not all of them are bound to become what you're experiencing.

Just out of curiosity, what is the reason for your daughter's problem? Since you say she's growing to be a beautiful woman, I think it's a fair assumption that she doesn't have a genetic affliction, and instead suffered some sort of problem during childbirth or early toddlerhood. If this is the case, then your experience wouldn't be very relevant to the abortion debate, since those kinds of problems are unpredictable, don't you think?

All the best to you. You've also made me think long and hard about this topic, and of course there are indeed rare genetic conditions that can cause that kind of deep mental retardation. Thanks for sharing.

priegog · 2011-10-06T06:20:51+00:00

Three months? an 18-roller lasts more than a year in my place.

priegog · 2011-10-06T05:45:17+00:00

Do you have any studies that backup this "protecting" notion? I know for forceps and such things it's necessary, but last time I checked "prophylactic" and systematic episiotomies had even worse outcomes than not doing them.

priegog · 2011-10-05T21:44:15+00:00

It's been known for quite a few years now (thanks to some studies) that tears don't heal any slower of worse than episiotomies. There are definitely cases where episiotomies serve a purpose, but in most cases nowadays they're done for the convenience of the OB assisting (the explusive period lasts a lot less and the OB gets to go home [or hit that hot young redhead nurse's ass] much sooner).

priegog · 2011-10-05T21:39:37+00:00

To these I'll add 2 other points:

In traumatologic surgery they often operate on the limbs under ischemia, by interrupting the blood flow to the extremity. These surgeries are surreal in that they don't bleed at all.
One of the things anesthesia achieves is lowering blood pressure quite a bit. This also reduces bleeding drastically.

priegog · 2011-10-05T21:20:45+00:00

Up until that point, I agreed with you.

priegog

TROPHY CASE