[QUOTE=ewmayer;140696]I merely assumed that they practice at home what they preach in public - if that is not in fact so, that makes them even bigger hypocrites.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Typical RRR hypocrisy.

[QUOTE=Prime95;140690]In the same vein, bloggers on the left are accusing Sarah Palin of faking her last pregnancy to cover up her daughter's pregnancy. Their evidence - none. Apparently their motto has changed from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty of whatever slander we make up simply because we don't like your politics".[/QUOTE]

I had also heard that some blame her for the child that she has with Down's Syndrome. Obviously those people know nothing about genetics.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;140696]I merely assumed that they practice at home what they preach in public - if that is not in fact so, that makes them even bigger hypocrites.[/QUOTE]

So, explain to me your thought process.

It seems this logic is OK:

1) Palins (we assume) teach their daughter abstinence is best.
2) Daughter rebels and gets pregnant anyway.
3) Conclusion: Teaching abstinence is doomed to failure. Teaching it in school is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Parents are hypocrites for suggesting others should teach abstinence too. Parents not fit for public office.

Then this logic should be OK too:

1) Democrat X teaches their daughter to use birth control and practice safe sex.
2) Daughter ignores parents and gets pregnant anyway.
3) Conclusion: Teaching sex education is doomed to failure. Teaching it in school is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Parents are hypocrites for suggesting others should teach sex ed too. Parents not fit for public office.

Whereas I suspect in the second case you would reach this conclusion instead:

3) One bad result does not disprove the benefits of a good sex education. Parents are enlightened. Their superior parenting skills lead you to believe they might make great public office holders.

...except that there is overwhelming evidence that sex education and promotion of contraception are far superior ways of preventing teen pregnancy than the right-wing-promoted ignorance/abstinence approach. In other words, it's not that the Palin's daughter getting pregnant - being, as you correctly note, just one data point - proves a broader trend, it's that the broader trend has already been firmly established by numerous public-health studies. The fact that the Palins continue to espouse a widely discredited approach despite it not only having been discredited by the public-health profession but also by their own personal experience - that makes them hypocrites.

In other words, I do believe it is fair to hold them to a higher standard.

And sex ed is just the tip of the ignorance iceberg here - they are also promoting a widely discredited "alternative to evolution" be taught in classrooms. So yeah, if one if one of their kids tripped on a dinosaur fossil and broke his leg, I would laugh much more heartily than if some random non-creationisat-spouting family's kid did the same.

But she really is very attractive... ;)

[quote=R.D. Silverman;140637]People who want malpractice insurance (e.g. before surgery) should be
allowed to buy it themselves. Let's recognize that noone is perfect
and that doctors make mistakes as a matter of national policy.
After all, don't people by auto insurance in case someone else makes
a driving error and causes them harm? Why should medicine be any
different? [/quote]
Doctors buy malpractice insurance because lawyers force them to. If there were no threat of lawsuits then the doctors would not have malpractice insurance. Unfortunately it doesn't look like the industry of lawsuits will change anytime soon.

Note that this kind of lawsuit insurance also applies to many other kinds of businesses that you deal with every day.

[quote=R.D. Silverman;140637]Another thing driving costs is hospitals having to treat uninsured.
I say "f*ck 'em". Why should the general public have to pay for
treating people who won't get insurance? Here in Massachusetts,
[B]everyone[/B] is required by law to have insurance. TANSTAAFL.[/quote]I don't understand your point. Are you advocating for requiring people to have insurance (as in Mass), or not requiring them to have insurance and fucking those that don't?

How does it help to bring down medical costs if everyone is required to be insured to some amount? If I as a medical provider know that all of my patients are insured, I might be more inclined to do more unnecessary tests to claim costs from insurance, knowing that I'll be reimbursed.

If the goal is to reduce medical costs & unnecessary expenses, then raising insurance isn't going to help.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;140700]...except that there is overwhelming evidence that sex education and promotion of contraception are far superior ways of preventing teen pregnancy...[/quote]

This is a far different argument than you stated before.

[quote]The fact that the Palins continue to espouse a widely discredited approach despite it not only having been discredited by the public-health profession but also by their own personal experience - that makes them hypocrites.[/quote]

No it doesn't. It makes them believers in a philosophy that you and others don't agree with. They believe in it, they practice it - therefore, by definition, they are not hypocrites.

[quote]And sex ed is just the tip of the ignorance iceberg here...[/quote]

Listen, bash her for belief in creationism, abstinence, prayer in school, whatever. Criticize her lack of experience and flip-flopping. That's all fair game. I can do without the unsubstantiated and undeserved character assassination.

[quote] if one if one of their kids tripped on a dinosaur fossil and broke his leg, I would laugh much more heartily than if some random non-creationisat-spouting family's kid did the same.[/quote]

Finding humor in irony is OK too.

[quote]But she really is very attractive... ;)[/QUOTE]

She sure is. I might just have to vote for McCain so I can see more of her on the world stage :)

[QUOTE=Prime95;140703]They believe in it, they practice it - therefore, by definition, they are not hypocrites.[/QUOTE]

I used the phrase "continue to espouse..." - it's not them practicing what they preach that I have a problem with. How hard is it to follow my reasoning here:

1. They preach X, and urge its widespread adoption as being in the public interest.
2. They practice X. [If not, return "hypocrite" and exit]
3. X is widely discredited by objective large-scale studies. [That makes them ignoramuses and/or religious zealots, but not necessarily hypocrites.]
4. Their own personal experience contradicts the efficacy of X.
5. Nonetheless, they continue to preach X, and to urge its widespread adoption as being in the public interest.

So hey, take your pick - "ignorant religious zealot" or "hypocrite". Either makes her eminently unfit to hold office in a secular democracy - which is why I said that the result of the election which tell us whether we live in such, or in a Christian cryptotheocracy. [And a quite strong argument could be made that there's nothing "crypto" about it.]

"But it's really a very *attractive* Christian cryptotheocracy - she's, erm I mean, it's, got such huge, erm, 'tracts of land'..."

[QUOTE=Prime95;140703]I can do without the unsubstantiated and undeserved character assassination.[/QUOTE]
It's really more "character heckling" - "assassination" is so ... dramatic.

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02mother.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin]A New Twist in the Debate on Mothers[/url] - [i]Gov. Sarah Palin has set off a fierce argument among women about whether she has the time to take on the vice presidency.[/i]
[quote]When Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska was introduced as a vice-presidential pick, she was presented as a magnet for female voters, the epitome of everymom appeal.

But since then, as mothers across the country supervise the season’s final water fights and pack book bags, some have voiced the kind of doubts that few male pundits have dared raise on television. With five children, including an infant with Down syndrome and, as the country learned Monday, a pregnant 17-year-old, Ms. Palin has set off a fierce argument among women about whether there are enough hours in the day for her to take on the vice presidency, and whether she is right to try.

It’s the Mommy Wars: Special Campaign Edition. But this time the battle lines are drawn inside out, with social conservatives, usually staunch advocates for stay-at-home motherhood, mostly defending her, while some others, including plenty of working mothers, worry that she is taking on too much.

“How is this really going to work?” said Karen Shopoff Rooff, an independent voter, personal trainer and mother of two in Austin, Tex. “I don’t care whether she’s the mother or the father; it’s a lot to handle,” she said, adding that Ms. Palin’s lack of national experience would only make her road more difficult.

“When I first heard about Palin, I was impressed,” said Pamela Moore, a mother of two from Birmingham, Ala. But upon reading that Ms. Palin’s special-needs child was three days old when she went back to work, Ms. Moore began questioning the governor’s judgment. Partly as a result, she plans to vote for Senator Barack Obama.

But Lori Viars, a mother of two and evangelical Christian from Lebanon, Ohio, cheered the candidacy as well as the decision of both Palin women to keep their babies. “The whole family is pro-life, and they put that into practice even when it’s not easy,” Ms. Viars said. [/quote]

[QUOTE=Prime95;140690]I have to agree with you here. I didn't respond to the original post because of the source. Bob has a history of hateful posts.

.[/QUOTE]

You need to learn the definition of hate. It's too bad that you don't
understand the meaning of a common English word. My posts have
expressed [b]contempt[/b] for others, based on their behavior
(which typically is willful ignorance), but not [b]hate[/b].
Hate implies dislike. Since I do not know anyone here personally
(with a few exceptions), I neither like nor dislike them. I do find that
the intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and stupidity exhibited by many
of the posts merits contempt. So I supply it.

[quote=R.D. Silverman;140746]I do find that
the intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and stupidity exhibited by many
of the posts merits contempt. So I supply it.[/quote]
Why is it that you think that stupid/lazy/dishonest people require negative words (contempt, hate, whatever you want to call it)? Why don't you just let sleeping dogs lie? Just leave the idiot alone and show that you're mature enough to not freak out about everybody else's mistakes, or lack of knowledge, or stupidity.

[QUOTE=jrk;140702]Doctors buy malpractice insurance because lawyers force them to.
If there were no threat of lawsuits then the doctors would not have malpractice insurance. Unfortunately it doesn't look like the industry of lawsuits will change anytime soon.
[/QUOTE]

No. You are blaming the messenger. Lawyers, by themeselves do not
have standing to sue. Lawyers are just the messengers of those who
HIRE them.

[QUOTE]

I don't understand your point. Are you advocating for requiring people to have insurance (as in Mass), or not requiring them to have insurance and fucking those that don't?

[/QUOTE]

Either. It is far more expensive to visit an emergency room than to
make an office visit to your PCP. But those who have no insurance are
driving up costs by treating the ER as if it were a visit to their local
doctor.

If one wants health care, then one needs to PAY FOR IT, like everything
else in life. Noone should get a free ride.

Here in Massachusetts, those who are truly poor are helped out by the
state by being given access to (partially) subsidized inexpensive
insurance. They still have to pay for part of it themselves, and the
insurance does not provide access to many of the fancier medical
procedures. But it does provide for basic coverage.

[QUOTE]

If the goal is to reduce medical costs & unnecessary expenses, then raising insurance isn't going to help.[/QUOTE]

What is "raising insurance"???