Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: OverLordd on July 13, 2006, 02:12:50 AM
-
You guys, well most of you anyway, know me. You know my earlly posts, you know the hate I tossed around and the vitrol I spewed at people that supported programs and this that and the other. My promises to do this that and the other or whatever. You could tell, I really used to hate these people. Well, after about 3 years, of thinking, growing, examing, I can really say I dont hate these people any more, at all, not one bit.
I pity them.
Yes I pity them now. I mean honestly. Who wants that job? Who wants to be acused of abusing children for a job. Weither they are abusing people or not, its got to get tireing after a while. They have rabid dogs after them in the forms of so many support groups its mind numbing, and only the fractured nature of the groups keeps them from being over run. I'm sure the people that run the programs get up in the morning, kiss their wives, and pray to god they dont get any hate mail. What kind of life is that?
They have to deal with crazy kids all day, I mean honestly, if you were not crazy before hand, you will be after getting tossed away from your family into a place like that. Who in the world would want do that. I think even Ginger, in all her benifience, would crack after a while.
Come on, were call the ones involved in the deaths of students muderers, but how do you think they feel. "Oh holy shit! The kid died on me!" Do you think they are really that sick as to kill a kid in cold blood? Sure its mansalughter, but manslaughter is not murder.
Think about that for a second. Thats really got to suck! Your getting charged with manslaughter, your facing a lawsuit, and you lost your job. I pity that! Thats not something to hate. Thats something to shake your head at and keep walking.
Some people would say that im going soft, and that I got hit hard resently so im toneing down my retoric, but honestly guys, would you rather your parents be mad at you, or be disapointed. Its kind of like that. Its better to have a enemy you can be prideful infront of, and debate, instead of one that just pities you, and wants to see you change what you do, because not only does it suck for those that you do it to, but it also sucks for you.
But there are people I still hate, well... reject maybe... well... I dont know if thats a strong enough word either. I will figgure it out as I go along. But the people I still (strong word meaning dislike to the point of rage) are those that run programs in the name of God using the name of God. As a Christian I really cant stand for that and it gets my goat.
-
I'll address the most important point first: You can either say "Oh my fucking GOD we fucking KILLED HIM" - OR - you can say "Heh, little brat had it coming anyway. He probably deserved it."
The second prevents them from challenging the brainwashing they as counselors received and makes them feel better about themselves. They've already helped commit acts of massive abuse. Killing someone is just another step down the dark abyss. Showing remorse would be the same as admitting they're actually in said abyss.
On the other hand, given the nature of the beast, any one of them, at any time, can snap out of it, 'turn', and start taking these places down. Most of them simply quit and try to wash the scum off their hands (hence the truly massive turnover). Those that don't, who stay and continue instead of doing something more ethical, aren't worthy of pity and should probably be gassed.
And the people who run these places are way too far gone to care about children's lives, let alone people's opinions.
-
Overlord, it's great you are no longer angry, but you might feel a lot different if it had been you who had been physically and emotionally abused. To just read about it is one thing, to live with the experience for the rest of your life is another. I am still angry. I don't believe the people working for those places give a shit what we think of them. Your portrayal of their horrible lives is wishful thinking. A more likely scenario goes like this... program owner wakes up in his huge bed with his beautiful wife in his mansion on the hill. Gets in his corvette, drives down to the office, gives all his employees a hard time to sell more, then spends the rest of the day at the beach, laughing all the way to the bank. This is the reality.
You call them your enemy, but that is not true. From the day you arrived at this forum it was obvious to me you were vying for the support of program supporters. I don't know why, but it seems to happen a lot to young folks to take up this cause, but were never personally effected. They seem to enjoy the back and forth with parents, probably because they have their own issues with their parents.
If somebody locks you in a cage and beats the shit out of you for their own amusement, and you tell the owner of the camp only to be told to shut up and told you are powerless, it's not so easy to turn off the hate.
So please, don't go declaring peace and claim to represent a group you have very little in common with.
-
I am glad you let this one out of the bag and not me.
I dont understand what you mean TSW.
And Milk Gargling Death Penal, do you really think that these guys are that far gone as to not be effected by the death of a human being? Of course there are some people that are really messed up. Of course humanity is depraved, but not that depraved. I dont think they are far gone enough not to care about lives, or people opinions, other wise we wouldent have some of them defending them selfs on this board.
Ok, guest, you know, if you have been here sence I have been here, wouldent you think about getting a login? Your right about one thing, and I should of made this clear to begin with. But no matter how much their life bites, or how much I pity them, it does not justify their actions. Continuing on, don't say im not personally affected, never say that. I have lost 2 friends to these places, and I have been yelled at by the feds for my words against these places, as well as a list of other things. Dont think I'm not affected. I'm not declaring any peace, I still dont like the places. Your trying to put words in my mouth, so cut it out.
And get a log in!
-
It must be freeing to be so naive, OL. :-? [/quote]
-
Explane what you mean, I dont know what your refering to.
-
Overlord,
You seem like a very nice person.
But I have no pity for the Sudweeks at Whitmore Academy.
I have no pity for Cheryl Sudweeks:
How do you pity a woman who chose to spit on children, to withold food from children as punishment, to throw a child down a flight of stairs, to call a child a "nigger,"......I could go on and on.
But why bother?
No: I have no pity for that woman.
Joyce Harris
-
I'm sure the people that run the programs get up in the morning, kiss their wives, and pray to god they dont get any hate mail. What kind of life is that?
The kind of life they deserve for allowing this shit to continue and actively participating in it. Besides, I don't think that's accurate at all. More likely what TSW or MGDP (forgot which one wrote the opposite scennario) wrote is more accurate.
They have to deal with crazy kids all day, I mean honestly, if you were not crazy before hand, you will be after getting tossed away from your family into a place like that. Who in the world would want do that.
Then they can get out anytime they want. But they don't.
I think even Ginger, in all her benifience, would crack after a while.
Nope, b/c she would never be involved in one in the first place.
Come on, were call the ones involved in the deaths of students muderers, but how do you think they feel. "Oh holy shit! The kid died on me!" Do you think they are really that sick as to kill a kid in cold blood? Sure its mansalughter, but manslaughter is not murder.
This is the most absurd part of your post. You want me to pity the people who actually caused the death of a kid? Again, I don't think they feel any real guilt. They see themselves as being a savior, doing a service and if a kid happens to die in the process, well it's collateral damage.
Think about that for a second. Thats really got to suck! Your getting charged with manslaughter, your facing a lawsuit, and you lost your job.
I know, the poor dears. :roll:
I pity that! Thats not something to hate. Thats something to shake your head at and keep walking.
I hate it. I hate them. I can't keep walking, I feel a need to speak out.
Some people would say that im going soft, and that I got hit hard resently so im toneing down my retoric, but honestly guys, would you rather your parents be mad at you, or be disapointed. Its kind of like that.
No, it's not like that at all. It's very different. As a kid you'd rather your parents be pissed and not disappointed because you care about your parents and what they think. You have a long standing relationship with them. There is no such relationship with programs. Those people could give a shit if people are "disappointed" in them.
Its better to have a enemy you can be prideful infront of, and debate, instead of one that just pities you, and wants to see you change what you do, because not only does it suck for those that you do it to, but it also sucks for you.
But there are people I still hate, well... reject maybe... well... I dont know if thats a strong enough word either. I will figgure it out as I go along. But the people I still (strong word meaning dislike to the point of rage) are those that run programs in the name of God using the name of God. As a Christian I really cant stand for that and it gets my goat.
They're no different than any other program. They all claim to be doing this for the benefit of the kids and families, they all claim to have the answer, they all claim to be the savior.
Overlordd, I am disappointed in you. This is a sad turn of events.
-
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phuck_str8/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phuck_str8/)
-
Maybe I'm not explaining my self properly, let me expand my view so hjopefully some can understand. I view pity as worse than hate. You hate a equal, you hate a person, you hate and idea.
Pity is condicending in nature. You pity a dog that got kicked, you pity people whos own actions got them in their perdicament. You hold these people up to your children as what not to do. I would rather be hated than pitied. Pity is a much worse emotion to me than hate ever could be.
Quote:
I think even Ginger, in all her benifience, would crack after a while.
Nope, b/c she would never be involved in one in the first place
I meant if she had to take care of tons of crazy kids all day.
Anyway, Anne, I think your coming at this through a completely diffrent world view than I am. I am talking about individuals, not their actions, and not the consiquences of said actions. I pity the person, the soul, not the actions, or the consiquences.
Joyce, I'm just commenting on what I feel for these sad little people that need to do this job to feel good about them selfs. Feel as you please.
-
Thanks, Ann, but I can't take credit for that. I did fall for it in a big way.
I was just writing about that in the Seed forum:
http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php?p=206891#206891 (http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php?p=206891#206891)
Not that I ever told myself I liked it or really approved. But it got me, it got me, it got me so damned hard that, if it hadn't been for that moment of clarity coinciding w/ an unusal turn of events in the room, why I might very easily have sat there blithely, unknowingly, even glibly approving while my dear friend and the other unfortunate strangers thrown into that timeout room beat Bobby the rest of the way to death.
And no, anon, I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to just snap out of it and turn coat. When you realize for the first time just how out of touch w/ reality you are in that situation, the first order of business to to get as far away, physically and mentally, from the fucked up social scene as you possibly can and then try to pull the tattered remnants of sanity back into some sort of cohesive fabric. Took me some years, really. Some people never do really come around. I think most people don't ever come around to where they can face the reality of what fucking savage animals we all are by default.
I think that's the crux of conflict between the 'get over it' crowd and those of us who can't seem to unsee the influences back and forth between Program philosophy and broader society.
-
Pity is condicending in nature. You pity a dog that got kicked,
A dog doesn't do anything to deserve to be kicked, so yes I pity a dog that's abused. I have no pity for these assholes
you pity people whos own actions got them in their perdicament.
No, I don't. I pity people who suffered at the hands of others for no action of their own.
I meant if she had to take care of tons of crazy kids all day.
But these people are most often the one's who MAKE the kids crazy! How can I pity them for having to work with crazy kids when THEY'RE the ones that made them that way? :roll:
Anyway, Anne, I think your coming at this through a completely diffrent world view than I am. I am talking about individuals, not their actions, and not the consiquences of said actions. I pity the person, the soul, not the actions, or the consiquences.
I'll agree with you there. I'm coming at this from the POV of someone who's experienced their bullshit first hand. I regularly go and "visit" the main perpetrator of my abuse. He has no remorse, no guilt, still says that we deserved what we got, still says that he was "helping". I have NO pity for him or his fucking wife. And I never will. Ever.
Hell, I"ll be dancing on his grave. Maybe in the near future from the looks of him recently. He ain't the pitcher o health. :rofl:
-
As with my post this morning, I don't have a lot of time to talk.
Overlordd- what are you smoking? The guest that posted after me was right on the money. They really are that depraved. If they wanted to stop the brutality, the brutality would stop.
The owners of these places can kill kids all day without losing half a second's sleep. They're far more worried about what it costs to their business than the actual kid. This is the way these people are. If they were any other way, these places wouldn't exist. Chew on that one for a while. Institutions reflect the personalities of their owners. If the place is brutal and inhuman, it's because it's run by someone like that.
Of course, if it was legal, I could kill the owners of these places all day without losing half a second's sleep. I'd even shout UT2004-isms while doing it. "First Blood!" "OWNED!" "Double Kill!" "Killing Spree!'
You can "not like" and "pity" all you want. The rest of us are going to find ways to get these shitholes shut down.
-
Thanks, Ann, but I can't take credit for that. I did fall for it in a big way.
I understand that. I think you're referring to the kids that went on staff or the like (haven't had a chance to get over to Seed forum yet). Yes, I can feel pity for them. But the assholes that start and run these places....FUCK NO.
I fell for it too. I"m sure that when I was in there I treated some people like shit. Afterwards I bought into all the bullshit about how I was the fucked up one, not my parents. Spent the better part of 20 years fighting them and the inlaws for custody and coming out of the fog but once I was physically out of the program I never hurt anyone else, at least in that manner. And I never would have dreamed of opening up a program. Neither would you have Eudora. :wink:
-
No really. I think that if things hadn't gone beyond the pale as they did at that time, I was sort of on the fence. Two years w/o a break except for the kind of 'rest' one can get while living on the lamb as a runaway minor took it's toll. Honestly, if it had been less obvious, less intensely hostile and violent, I might well have fallen for it. It's not that I would have loved breaking and hurting people. It's that, given the psyche pressures and whole Twilight Zone setting, the easiest thing in the world is to believe that you're helping and not hurting and to throw yourself into it w/ reckless abandon.
I saw a lot of ppl do that. And I have to find some sympathy for this right now after seeing my family. I just have to understand how my dear brother could have become the kind of old man who takes pleasure in calling the cops on teenagers out after 10PM and, when challenged on that, tell me in words that he's saving their lives.
If I can't understand that somehow, I have to hate him and I can't do that either.
-
I can understand that to a certain extent, but I think there's a world of difference between your brother and Miller Newton, Jay Kay, Randal Hinton and the Litchfields. We all fell for it to a degree, but I doubt that any of us would end up going to the lengths that these assholes have.
-
Yeah, there's a difference. People like Virgil and Art had higher aspirations than my bro. Sad but true. I do pity them as much as I would a rabid rottweiler.
-
I never felt that full body, all encomasing hatred for the day-to-day staffers that would come on for a year and quit, which was usually the case. It's been a while since my own experience and the hate for specific staff that harmed me has dwindled to almost non-existent. I see them like you would an enemy soldier. They wouldn't be there if their leader hadn't sent them. Sure, you can get angry at them, and kill them. But the leader on the other side can just send more. That is why I do feel hatred towards the owners and investors of programs, and those in power who allow them to operate unimpeded. If a disgruntled staff wanted to shut down a program, they couldn't. An owner could do it instantly. A kid dies, bam, that's it. No more games, it's time to get these kids professional help, even if it means I make less by employing professionals and raising the standards. But it doesn't happen. Instead, they cover it up. Send out their minions to do damage control and bribe politicians. How could you NOT hate these people?
-
Hate is definitely the seed of revenge. It took me a while to figure out why the rich are so scared all time, hiding in gated communities with private armed forces patrolling, etc. A lot of them make their money off the backs of others and they depend upon the 'system' to protect them. I would be terrified to if I depended upon this house of cards to protect me from all those who I fucked over and wished me harm.
I wonder how many people on this planet are sitting on their own private arsenals just waiting for 'the day'?
-
So is the US, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Lebanon, Russia, China....
-
Should we pity this guy OL?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YS6McVodie8& ... ld%20abuse (http://youtube.com/watch?v=YS6McVodie8&search=child%20abuse)
-
Yeah, we should, thats pretty sad, a pityful example of humanity, but again, pity does not mean that you dont face the consiquences of your actions.
-
I guess that right there is the difference between our views on this matter. When I view this video I feel pity for the girl being attacked, and only contempt for the man doing the beating.
-
I dont think its wise to have pity for a victim. Sure. Help them, feel bad for what happened, promise that it will ever happen again, but pity condicends against them and makes them less for what happened to them.
-
:-?
just FYI....
pit·y
n. pl. pit·ies
1. Sympathy and sorrow aroused by the misfortune or suffering of another.
2. A matter of regret: It's a pity she can't attend the reception.
Idiom:
have/take pity on
To show compassion for.
Synonyms: pity, compassion, commiseration, sympathy, condolence, empathy
These nouns signify kindly concern aroused by the misfortune, affliction, or suffering of another. Pity often implies a feeling of sorrow that inclines one to help or to show mercy: felt pity for the outcast. Compassion denotes deep awareness of the suffering of another and the wish to relieve it: ?Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism? (Hubert H. Humphrey). Commiseration signifies the expression of pity or sorrow: expressed their commiseration over the failure of the experiment. Sympathy denotes the act of or capacity for sharing in the sorrows or troubles of another: ?They had little sympathy to spare for their unfortunate enemies? (William Hickling Prescott). Condolence is a formal, conventional expression of pity, usually to relatives upon a death: extending condolences to the bereaved family. Empathy is an identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives: Having changed schools several times as a child, I feel empathy for the transfer students.
-
I live near, not in, cluster subdivisions where the homes start at half a million, some where the homes start at three quarters of a million.
I suppose most folks would consider those "the rich".
Most of the rich people I've met didn't make their money on the backs of others. At least, not anymore than we all do. I write books. People buy the books, I get a cut. You could say I "made money on their backs" because they had to pay in order to walk out of the store with the book. You could say I "made money on the backs" of the low paid employees somewhere in the bowels of the publishing, distributing, and book selling system.
Except that those folks would probably be pissed off if someone said, "Oh, we cannot exploit you anymore, we are closing this horrible capitalist enterprise, fly, be free!" If the former employers then said you talked them into it, the newly unemployed would probably come egg your house. ;-)
I'm not rich. Writing doesn't pay as much as geeking, which I used to do, so it's a lifestyle choice.
Most of the rich people I know: a few are doctors, some own one or more small businesses, some work in executive positions doing some sort of mental gruntwork. Example: my cousin's husband makes mid six figures as the Chief Financial Officer of an explosives company in a mining city. He's not Ebeneezer Scrooge. He's a number cruncher. Sort of a Bob Cratchett with fair pay, a hell of a lot of talent, and economies of scale.
It's hard to put the rich in pigeonholes by what they do, because if there was a cookie-cutter ticket to fortune, a lot more people would be doing it. ;-)
Most rich people didn't hurt a damned soul to get where they are. They just had a good talent at something, worked hard and made the most of it, and exercised iron-clad financial discipline to avoid making foolish money decisions---like lots of high interest debt, forex.
Rich people, whatever their talents, almost all share one single, shining, exceptional talent: the ability to delay gratification.
There are some rich scumbags. I wouldn't invite the Litchfields to dinner, nor accept their invitation if, god knows why, they invited me.
Most rich people are not scumbags. They just have wealth-generating and wealth-protecting lifestyle habits instead of poverty lifestyle habits.
Most poor people are poor because they lack some of the money habits middle class kids, like me, soaked up with our mothers' milk.
I've had enough poor friends to see it over and over again.
I've been poor--for a few tough years. I didn't stay that way. If I'd made the day in and day out repeated money mistakes that my poor friends make, I'd still be poor.
Not exactly their fault, just that there are things they don't know or habits they're not willing to have that would make the difference between being poor and at least lower middle class. At minimum.
If they'd started using good money habits and delayed gratification and using their best talents back when the rich did, they'd be rich.
Like I said, I was a middle class kid. That's normal to me. Like most people, I'd like to be rich, but I'm not driven to be rich. Which is why I'm not rich. ;-)
Julie
-
You sound like Tony Robbins today, Julie, or whoever wrote the book about the Habits of "Successful" People.
What a narrow view of the larger reality.
Let's say all the poor people changed their 'habits' as you call them, determined to 'delay gratification' as you say, and went in deep debt for a college education.
Would there be well paying professional jobs for that mass (majority) of people? No. I have friends who did all those things and can't find positions in their field. I have a number of close friends who incured debt and went into social work who are earning incomes that would qualify for working class or poor status depending on where one lives.
Who is responsible for the ceiling on minimum wage? Why isn?t there a ceiling on other class?s earnings? A ceiling on what CEOs earn? Why aren?t there enough jobs that pay a living wage? Why do people believe there should be no assistance in a system that is designed so that some will live in poverty even if they work two jobs- is that just a "bad habit"? Why is there so much disgust and disdain for those who can?t pull themselves up by their boot straps when they don?t even have fucking boots? The only "bad habit" I can see is a fucked up class system based on a foundation of greed and fear.
If all these people (with bad "habits") developed "good" habits- If every person had a degree and there were actually enough professional jobs to go around, can you imagine what society would look like? Would it function well? Who do you think would cook your burgers and pizzas; fix your car; grow your food, ship it, stock it and sack your groceries; make the clothes you're wearing; clean your homes, offices and schools; maintain your lawn and pool; care for your children; dig ditches; build roads and other infrastructure; produce your books, etc. etc. Get the picture? Isn?t society dependent on diversity? Of course it is. Therefore, what about a living wage for all doesn't make sense?
And don't come back with the elitest notion that your or any other middle class or owning class person's contribution to society is somehow more valuable than anyone elses. That's a crock of shit. If all the low wage working people went on strike for a month society would grind to a halt. Unfortuantely they live hand to mouth and they would be hurt more than those who are dependent on their "skills" which are underpaid and under appreciated.
I'm guessing there was probably someone who saw to it that you had food to eat and a place to live while you were getting your education- pretty typical of middle class anyway, not typical for working/poor. Middle class kids usually don't get weaned from their mama's tit until they graduate college. You consider that "delaying gratification"?
Yeh, if you aren't actually producing the product or providing the service you're profiting from, you are making your living off the backs of those who do that work for you. Chances are good that you will live well, while your slaves barely live. While there are many exceptions to the general rule, the playing field is not level and equal opportunity is a myth.
As for your doctor friends, they kinda fall in a grey catagory. They usually own the business and do at least some of the labor. If the fees they charged were proportionate to the average wage, they wouldn't be rich. They would be living comfortably like everyone else and people would not being going without medical care because they can't afford it.
-
I actually agreed with deborah on one level and Julie on another. I agree that middle class people are able to produce a better life style for their kids because they get enough money in their pay packets to both gratify their wants & also increase their wealth by putting some of it away so I think the comparison is unfair because it is comparing apples with oranges.
I also agree that no capitalist economy can run without a working class & that it is al too easy for the middle classes everywhere to sit back and talk about delaying gratification to get out of the poverty cycle. I would imagine though that if I had to work in a demanding and physically stressful job or even two just to get enough money to put food on the table I would be pretty unwilling to give up the few immediate pleasures that i could afford.
I also think that in western countries class is more complex than just salary. There are many jobs which require a middle class education like social work and teaching & which have great benefit in shaping a society yet which are not paid very highly at all. This says a lot about what western cultures value. People in the human services socially fit in with the middle classes but are not paid to accurately reflect what they do because their jobs do not actively generate money.
Having said that there I think there is something to be said for the idea that we are products of our upbringing. It makes sense that if from birth kids are told that they are going to achieve big things etc & the family has the money to back this up by providing a good education etc, then of course they have far more choices in life.
There was a really interesting documentary on social class made about 3 years ago in America called People Like Us
the link to the website is
/www.pbs.org/peoplelikeus/
One thing that jars me when thinking aboout the people who work in this "teen industry" is the Marvin Lee Anderson case. I can see logically how a person can buy into the idea of "manipulation" etc & neglect a kid till it dies or even become overzealous while restraining a kid but those guys literally kicked a kid to death. He was not fighting back. He was not sitting being observed in an uncomfortable position for too long, he was just being kicked until he died. This seems to be more like murder than manslaughter to me
-
Doh. forgot to log in again. That previous poster was me. Only the weblink was meant to be in bold not the entire last paragraph!
-
Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America
Barbara Ehrenreich
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_78966516 (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_5_61/ai_78966516)
http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/us_mayor_n ... _dimed.asp (http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/us_mayor_newspaper/documents/02_04_02/nickel_dimed.asp)
CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND POLICY RESEARCH
For Immediate Release: Tuesday, October 18, 2005
75% OF AMERICAN WORKERS DON'T HAVE DECENT WAGES AND BENEFITS
Washington, DC -- Only 25.2 percent of American workers have a job that pays at least $16 per hour and provides health insurance and a pension, according to a new study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Full report:
http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/decent_wages.htm (http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/decent_wages.htm)
~~
75% of Americans are working class/poor earning $30K (or less) per year. That's a lot of people. And certainly doesn't support the notion that people are poor, aren't "successful", because they lack skill or motivation or can't/won't delay gratification. All propoganda designed to misinform and further divide the classes.
The '06 HHS Poverty Guidelines
Persons in Family or Household/ 48 Contiguous States and D.C./ Alaska/ Hawaii
1- $ 9,800 $12,250 $11,270
2- 13,200 16,500 15,180
3- 16,600 20,750 19,090
4- 20,000 25,000 23,000
5- 23,400 29,250 26,910
6- 26,800 33,500 30,820
7- 30,200 37,750 34,730
8- 33,600 42,000 38,640
For each additional person, add 3,400 4,250 3,910
Way too low. Any wonder most working class people classify themselves as middle class when asked?
-
That was mine. Somehow got logged out??
-
How in the hell did this turn into a argument on class?
-
How classy of you. :o
-
Why should doctors receive an "average wage" (as Deborah put it) when their education and training so exceeds the average?
-
Yeah I am surprised soldiers aren't paid more... or treated better for that matter. Or hell, even at least bring home some booty. :lol:
-
Why should doctors receive an "average wage" (as Deborah put it) when their education and training so exceeds the average?
You misquoted me:
If the fees they charged were ?proportionate to the average wage?, they wouldn't be rich. They would be living comfortably like everyone else and people would not be going without medical care because they can't afford it.
Not only do doctors and pharmaceutical companies charge exorbitant fees for their services/products, we are moving toward mandatory insurance to pay those fees.
http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php?t=16494 (http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php?t=16494)
And why exactly should doctors be held in such high esteem? They don?t ?cure? anything. Their treatments kill many every year. They know nothing about preventing disease.
http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php? ... enic#72562 (http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php?p=72562&highlight=iatrogenic#72562)
-
I'm involved in some action sports and I've seen a lot of my friends 'put back together' using modern surgical techniques, and they wouldn't be able to walk otherwise... I'm sure they thought the price was worth it.
-
Yeh, surgeons are quiet useful in crisis situations- although one would be wise to mark the correct limb. While they may know how to put someone back together, they often seem to not know left from right. For this reason, I understand how people could consider their services to be "invaluable" and worth every penny of their exhorbitant fees.
Don't miss the point- A living wage so that all might have access to medical care when "necessary". It's quiet challenging for someone earning $7/hr to access the services of someone earning $400+/hr.
Folks in Mass are going to be forced to carry med insurance next year- whether they can afford it or not, and be fined (jailed?) if they dont- which will guarantee doctors fees.
I hope this pilot program doesn't spread around the country. What about those like myself who very rarely use regular MDs? We will be forced to help pay other's doctor bills while our alternative/preventive choices will not be covered. That would suck. If I lived in Mass, I'd be planning to leave the state before the deadline.
-
Isn't a 'living wage' somewhat redundant, simply because if the person was not receiving a wage (work + any other income or beneifits) they could survive on, they would, literally, die. I do not see Americans dying in the streets of starvation, quite the opposite in fact. I see poor Americans dying of fatness. One might even make the argument, the majority of those left on the streets are mentally ill and/or addicted to alochol and drugs and could benefit from what modern medicine has to offer. Perhaps the medical establishment might be able to handle drug addiction better than the criminal justice system as well.
-
In America, the idea of making a living has come to mean the ability to support a modular family in a private home w/ at least one personal vehicle, vacation, travel and all the rest. When we say someone's not making a living wage, we usually mean that they're living partly off the public dole or help from friends and family.
I guess it would be hard for a European to comprehend the deep seated shame that an American feels for having to rely on the government for basic needs. I don't think most Americans even really understand where that comes from. Back in the old days, say around the time of the American Revolution, most people understood very well the perril of relying too heavily on the King for survival. A king can be arbitrary and cruel, withholding basic needs in order coerce his people into acting against their own best interst.
But these days, well it's just a throw back; 100th monkey sort of thing. We've forgotten that governments are not kindly, generous old grandmother figures who always have our best interest at heart and in deed. We just know that only loosers take the free lunch and government cheese.
-
I've been through several day treatment type programs for adults, and got to see some pretty fucked up individuals. These were normal looking adults for the most part, your typical walmart crowd, until they started talking. Demons in the trunk of their car, tv show hosts talking directly to them, just crazy shit. The psychiatrists' that these people were seeing seemed to be interested in helping these people, genuinely. I've seen these people on and off the meds, and I have learned that meds do help some people, it's life and death. Sure, they shouldn't be putting every little kid on meds because they lack exercise, but some people really in need do benefit from government benefits. Did I mention all these folks were on medi-cal. If they didn't have the state's help, they would be on the street, have killed themselves already, or would be taken advantage of by someone intelligent and coherent enough to deceive them.
It's sad, because you wonder what the heck went haywire in their brain to cause such a dramatic decline of self awareness and reality. Some lived at home with family, many in group homes, and a few by themselves in apartments. The ones who lived by themselves tended not to do so well. Within a period of a week, one guy was brought in by cops after they caught him running across a major four lane highway, forgot to take his meds, oops. Another woman, cops brought her in to inpatient because she decided to stop her car on a busy freeway offramp, you know, the demon in the trunk -- oops -- someone forgot to take their meds.
Sometimes I think people romanticize the past. They used to just lock the mentally ill up in wharehouses. Ring a bell anyone?
-
I know 3 springs is going to strongly disagree here, but isn't the whole role of govt anywhere to fill the gaps that the private enterprise system can't. Eg to provide education to all children & healthcare to anyone who does not make enough money to afford it themselves or to regulate an industry so that it can limit any harm it is doing? eg: setting down a minimum wage so that no adult has to live off $7.00 per hr. I don't necessarily take issue with what any doctor or other highly paid private industry professional earns, but I can't understand why teachers & public sector workers do not get paid equally as they have studied hard & provide an invaluable service. I would be much happier if this is where my taxes went predominantly.
-
Mentally Ill only make up less than a quarter of the homeless population.
http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php? ... ess#102828 (http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php?p=102828&highlight=homeless#102828)
http://nch.ari.net/jobs.html (http://nch.ari.net/jobs.html)
Nat'l Coalition for the Homeless
The connection between impoverished workers and homelessness can be seen in homeless shelters, many of which house significant numbers of full-time wage earners. A survey of 30 U.S. cities found that almost one in five homeless persons is employed (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1998). In a number of cities not surveyed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors - as well as in many states - the percentage is even higher (National Coalition for the Homeless, 1997).
The future of job growth does not appear promising for many workers: a 1998 study estimated that 46% of the jobs with the most growth between 1994 and 2005 pay less than $16,000 a year; these jobs will not lift families out of poverty (National Priorities Project, 1998).2 Moreover, 74% of these jobs pay below a livable wage ($32,185 for a family of four). [Note: that is nowhere near a living wage for a fam of 4]
Wikipedia has a good definition, here?s an excerpt:
The term "living wage" is used by advocates to refer to the minimum hourly wage necessary for a person to achieve some specific standard of living. In the context of developed countries such as the United Kingdom or Switzerland, this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford a specified quality or quantity of housing, food, utilities, transport, health care, and of recreation. This concept differs from the minimum wage in that the latter is set by law, and may fail to meet the requirements of a living wage.
In the United States, several municipalities and local governments have enacted ordinances which set a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum for the purpose of requiring all jobs to meet the living wage for that region. Often, these ordinances only apply to certain types of businesses, such as those receiving government contracts. However, San Francisco, California, Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Madison, Wisconsin have notably passed very wide-reaching living wage ordinances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage)
~~
LW for Austin, Tx was determined to be $9.79/hr by the LW Coalition. The formula for calculating it:
http://www.main.org/alwc/wageformula.htm (http://www.main.org/alwc/wageformula.htm)
It?s a myth that the homeless are largely ?mentally ill?.
The survey was conducted in 14 homeless shelters run by Volunteers of America in Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. There were 202 homeless families in those shelters; they included a total of 370 children. The survey found that 42 percent of the adults were employed, and that 28 percent of them had never received public assistance.
According to the survey the median income for working homeless families in the four states is $988/mo. Volunteers of America figures the cost of housing, food and child care exceeds that by about 20 percent. [Only $1185 for housing, food, child care? No way. Unrealistic.]
http://www.universallivingwage.org/ (http://www.universallivingwage.org/)
You can learn more about the demographics by reading the Conference of Mayors report:
http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/hungersurv ... er2000.pdf (http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/hungersurvey/2000/hunger2000.pdf)
Across the survey cities it is estimated that single men comprise 44 percent of the homeless population, families with children 36 percent, single women 13 percent and unaccompanied youth 7 percent. Sixty-three percent of the homeless families in the survey cities are headed by a single parent.
Survey city officials estimated that 50 percent of the population is African-American, 35 percent is white, 12 percent is Hispanic, 2 percent is Native-American and one percent is Asian.
It is estimated that persons considered mentally ill account for 22 percent of the homeless population in the survey cities; substance abusers account for 37 percent. Twenty-six percent of the homeless in the survey cities are employed in full-or part-time jobs. Fifteen percent are veterans.
A number of diverse and complex factors have contributed to the problems of homelessness in the survey cities. Many of these factors are interrelated. Listed in order of frequency, the following causes were identified by the cities in response to an open-ended question: lack of affordable housing, low paying jobs, substance abuse and the lack of needed services, mental illness and the lack of needed services, domestic violence, poverty, and changes and cuts in public assistance.
An average of 29 percent of the eligible low-income households are currently served by assisted housing in the survey cities.
Officials in the survey cities estimate that low-income households spend an average of 51 percent of their income on housing.
[Seriously, I would like to see the tables turned (fantasy), whereby those earning $50K or more paid 51% of their earnings for housing, which would supplement those who aren?t earning a LW. Ya think the middle/owning class would go for an economy that demanded that much of their income for housing? Never.]
While the economy is strong, we need to be very mindful of the economy of many individuals. In this population, employment still often means minimum wages. In that framework, here is the math: 40 hours/week X $5.50/hour X 4.5 weeks/month = $990 month. gross $990 X .15 taxes = $842 month. net Average low-income rent = $350 Average low-income utilities payment = $150 Remaining monies = $342. $342 is to cover all other costs that these individuals have, which includes, but is not limited to, food, personal hygiene items, home cleaning items, transportation, clothing, telephone and/or access, potential health insurance premiums or co-pays, insurance for their homes/furniture and other costs of living. Three Hundred and Forty Two dollars may be considered enough for an individual living alone, but what is the effect of this income on a family?
Sorry to disagree about teacher?s pay, but around here they earn plenty for their contribution, and get a 2.5 month paid vacation every year. They are way down ?my? list of groups who need a pay raise.
-
If Texas is any indication of Teacher salaries; not too many teachers should be complaining about salaries.
Salary for a begning teacher, with no experience, BA DEGREE:
State contract: 180 days per year. (9 months on...3 months off)
Normal hours: 8Am - 3:30 PM
Granted teachers do have to grade papers etc after school hours.
Probably have to attend a monthly PTA meeting.
Some may have to participate in extra activities: but strong Teacher Unions do not allow teachers to "work for free."
Coaching, etc pays extra.
Dallas ISD: $44,159
Austin ISD: $38,190
Corpus Chrisit ISD $42,000
Northside, San Antonio: $42,153
This District is advertising for 700 teachers for 2006/2007
Houston ISD: $40,268
-
Never be sorry to disagree. It is a freedom that so many kids in facilities are apparently denied. :wink:
i am an enormous hypocrite because i enter this debate as a middle income earner who really likes my life. What can i say, i went to the chardonnay school of socialism so i can't see the benefits of charging the middle and upper classes so much in either rent or tax that they have a significantly reduced disposable income. This leds to recession which amounts to reduced quality of life for all.
I do believe in some level of govt intervention both in the economy and in the setting of wages. i realise that this is extremely unamerican but nobody can trust the market alone. Why would i as a greedy empolyer pay my worker more than minimum if i did not have to? This is where interventionism is vital because it sets a minimum standard of wages and conditions for workers and provides them with a fair go. Australia used to have a real comittment to this principal but we are now going the way of America & it is a real shame.
-
NOW, comparing this case with that of men who beat to death the kid in the Florida Boot camp not so long ago is an entirely different case. These men were caught on film, MURDERING, a child. Christ Almighty watch the video it looks like they were walking off later to go get a cold beer for a job well done or something. At least that was my take on it.
See, I pitty them all the more. And I fear them all the more. What I saw happening in that video was just about exactly the same thing I saw in group when we/they restrained a misbehaver. The only difference was luck. Just stupid luck that they kept on seeing a malingerer instead of an unconcious kid till it was too damned late. Could very easily have happened to me or right in front of me in Straight. Only dumb luck made the difference.
Yeah, I have deep sympathy for someone who's so estranged from their own perceptions and reality to participate in something like that and still not see the connection. Doesn't mean we can afford to let them live. Just that I feel sorry for the poor, morally bankrupt, soulless bastards.
-
***i went to the chardonnay school of socialism so i can't see the benefits of charging the middle and upper classes so much in either rent or tax that they have a significantly reduced disposable income. This leds to recession which amounts to reduced quality of life for all.
Stricitly a rhetorical comment. Would never happen.
I can't imagine how a living wage would harm the economy.
Even at middle income, how would you feel about paying 51% of your income for housing?
Those earning more should pay more tax, their fair share, at minimum.
I'm a single self employed woman and pay more tax than my sil who earns probably six times what I do.
Next time I feel resentment about that, I'll try to remember that I must sacrifice to save all the middle incomers from discomfort of recession. No big deal for the poor. They live in recession.
The whole class structure and fear of poverty is one of the primary reason we have teen warehouses. Parents are terrified their kid won't end up in the right college, will end up working class or poor, and god forbid, dependent on them for any financial assistance.
-
Deborah- doctors charge "exorbitant" fees so that they can cover the cost of their malpractice insurance, which is so high as a result of so many frivilous lawsuits, as well as legitimate and quasi-legitimate lawsuits demanding "exorbitant" amounts of money.
In fact, malpractice rates are so high, many doctors cannot afford to practice. There is now a shortage of obstetricians, as many doctors refuse to practice OB now (they just practice GYN rather than OBGYN), because the risk of lawsuit and the malpractice rates are just too high.
And because of all these lawsuits, health care providers are forced to spend less time at the bedside because we have to document, document, document, this and that and this and that, and fill out this form and that form, just to fullfill JCAHO requirements and make sure our asses are covered in the event of a lawsuit.
Why are you so angry at doctors?
FYI, most doctors I know work for hospitals, and make only about $100K a year, maybe 120K. This is after 4 years of undergrad, 4 years of med school, and 3 years of 100-hour workweeks of grunt work as a resident.
Unless a doctor can come up with some new, high-tech procedure, they do not make huge amounts of money.
Surgeons, in addition to 8 years of school, go through a 7 year residency program, just to be a general surgeon. If they want to specialize in something (like bypass surgery), thats several additional years of training.
Talk about "delaying gratification".
And may I point out that doctors, do, in fact, save lives, and they do so every day. And they certainly do have effective treatments for many disease. I'm a nurse, okay, I see this shit first hand all the time.
I don't think you know the first thing about doctors and the practice of medicine.
-
The reason teachers, and social workers, and nurses don't get paid well is because those jobs are traditionally held by women.
-
***i went to the chardonnay school of socialism so i can't see the benefits of charging the middle and upper classes so much in either rent or tax that they have a significantly reduced disposable income. This leds to recession which amounts to reduced quality of life for all.
Strictly a rhetorical comment. Would never happen.
Well of course it was rhetorical to an extent. If the minimum wage was increased significantly by govt mandate though but the tax rate remained the same, it would create a living wage. I dont really know what the tax rate is in the US. Here the middle class (40-75k bracket ) shoulder a fairly high tax burden in comparison to brackets higher & lower. As you point out i dont think it is unreasonable because it does not have a major impact on my life but i do think those in the bracket above me should shoulder more of the burden & those who earn below my bracket less.
As to why parents put their kids in programmes, I had the impression from many of the kids who post that it was about control over behaviour more than fear of poverty. I can certainly see how this would be a factor though. How would a parent reconcile spending the money that would normally go into a college fund with this idea? (not counting those rich enough to do both)
To three springs comments about health care, i have a question? Do all states have some kind of public health systems? I can see the benefits of health care being taken over by the states in a country that large because a more localised system is more accessable to those who need it. I was under the impression that almost all healthcare was private in the US?
-
Megan,
We've had this discussion before.
Remember when you defended that C Sections were only performed in emergency situations? Since that time there have been 6 more births in our circle of 30-something friends. Not one was a vaginal birth. Every one planned C Section. Vaginal births are a rarity.
And what will be the excuse now that Bush has all but done away with medical malpractice suits? Woops, cut off the wrong tit. Oh well, you'll adjust. Sorry 'bout that double mastectomy. We really thought you had cancer. I think you'll find that reconstruction is now very affordable.
In case you've forgotten my position on the Medical Establishment.
http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php? ... tary#65854 (http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php?p=65854&highlight=complementary#65854)
http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php? ... ion#175368 (http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php?p=175368&highlight=section#175368)
http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php? ... rth#204974 (http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php?p=204974&highlight=birth#204974)
http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php? ... enic#72562 (http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php?p=72562&highlight=iatrogenic#72562)
http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php? ... ary#142109 (http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php?p=142109&highlight=complementary#142109)
http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php? ... tary#72492 (http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php?p=72492&highlight=complementary#72492)
http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php? ... ine#207285 (http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php?p=207285&highlight=medicine#207285)
http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php? ... ine#178318 (http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php?p=178318&highlight=medicine#178318)
http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php? ... pel#103365 (http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php?p=103365&highlight=scalpel#103365)
-
***If the minimum wage was increased significantly by govt mandate though but the tax rate remained the same, it would create a living wage.
I disagree. First, the MW is not going to be raised by Fed gov't mandate, and even if it were, it would not be sufficient to constitute a LW. The LW is adopted voluntarily by cities and only a few businesses are required to pay it. Second, the tax system needs to be adjusted, period. Those earning below a LW should pay no tax, imo.
***As to why parents put their kids in programmes, I had the impression from many of the kids who post that it was about control over behaviour more than fear of poverty. I can certainly see how this would be a factor though. How would a parent reconcile spending the money that would normally go into a college fund with this idea? (not counting those rich enough to do both)
Correct. Behavior is the key factor. But behavior, in the majority of cases, includes not attending school, being expelled from school, "risking their academic future". Some kids are placed solely for this reason. The line the program my son attended used, "Cash in the college fund. They may not get to college without a TBS." That's how some reconcile it. If you read ST you see plenty of parents concerned about their kids academic/financial future.
-
The majority of ST posts are complete bunk. Don't base anything real on what's said there.
-
The teachers' salaries listed DO indicate underpayment. Teachers are required to have a B.A., a credential, and now often a Master's in addition to keeping up with classes on the side as requirements continually change. There are very few professions in which such an educated person would make only $40k.
-
A bit off topic, but about the whole 'parents are afraid of their kid ending up impoverished so they locked 'em up' excuse does not fly with me. I don't think that is the reason at all why parents use these camps, however, I do believe by that statement even showing up it says something about those parents. It's not that the parent is scared of their child being poor, what is there to be scared for? If you work at McDonalds you still eat, have a place to sleep (even if its with four roomates), and being a working class stiff does not regulate your life to misery, hardly. In my opinion, these parents are truly concerned with how their child's downward economic mobility will embarass the family and parents. Some of these parents view their children as an extension of themselves, something to be trained and showed like a prized horse, to impress their rich parents friends (and themselves).
One tip for kids with parents like this... leave the day you turn 18 and don't look back and don't let them blackmail you with a car/rent/college money -- you will regret it forever!
-
For some parents, it's a last resort in a desparate attempt to save a life. Fault them for being uniformed about abuse and about the ineffectiveness of "treatment" at a TBS. Fault them for their many failures as parents. But some of these parents aren't really thinking too much about school or saving their child's academic career and/or their child's prospects for pursuing the American Dream. Some of them are more worried that the next trip to the ER is going to be followed by a trip to the morgue.
While you're at it, fault our wonderful societal and governmental institutions that put so little emphasis or money into mental health care or real substance abuse treatment, and that prefer to blame the victim for his or her "moral failings" that got them to where they are. Our society would rather throw kids away, blame them for their problems and lock them up, rather than offer them any real solutions or any real hope for the future. Desperate parents do desperate and sometimes foolish things, all with the best intentions.
-
[Some of them are more worried that the next trip to the ER is going to be followed by a trip to the morgue.
That's a frightening selling point, but the reality is that is only true in a small minority of kids sent to programs. If a kid was in that kind of immediate danger, they belong in an acute psychiatric care environment. From the several facilities I was at, I would say the large majority are there for minor reasons, and many as a result of their parents dysfunction, not their own.
-
That's a frightening selling point, but the reality is that is only true in a small minority of kids sent to programs. If a kid was in that kind of immediate danger, they belong in an acute psychiatric care environment. From the several facilities I was at, I would say the large majority are there for minor reasons, and many as a result of their parents dysfunction, not their own.
Which is why a court proceeding should be required, with legal representation for the kid, before any kid could ever be committed against his or her will. Like in the state of Washington. There is no excuse for a human being to be institutionalized for "minor reasons" or because of their parents' failures.
And any such "programs" -- TBS, RTC, WC, etc. -- should be heavily regulated and supervised by truly independent authorities, to make sure the inmates' rights are protected and that something that at least has the potential to be "therapeutic" is being offered. That would cause most of them to be shut down in an instant, and the Stuggling Parents would be able to make a more rational choice and avoid being conned.
-
Second, the tax system needs to be adjusted, period. Those earning below a LW should pay no tax, imo.
I would agree with this. Do you guys have a tax free threshhold? Or does everyone who earns any kind of private living have to pay tax? or does it vary from state to state?
I have read struggling teens from time to time largely to try & understand what compels people to send thier kids to programmes. The mix seems to be between parents whose kids according to the posts are in a lot of trouble & those who send their kids for fairly benign rsns. Someone mentioned the fact that there is an embarrasment factor. I think they are probably on to something big there.
-
Re: Tax
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf)
Embarrassment is a key issue, which includes embarrassment about one's kid not being accepted to/attending the right college. I think this is more true for those who select the more expensive "college prep" (in name only) programs.
-
I can understand the parent being concerned about kids doing poorly in school in that education increases options. (not to the point of sending a kid to a programme) but I wonder what the parents of kids who are just not academically interested or inclined actually do for their kids on this score. I wonder if many take a socially snobbish view to trades and apprenticeships. i know if i had the choice between this & some programme for my kid id soon get over the snobbery. I wonder if it is even an option that many talk to their kid about trying to pursue. In Australia at the moment their is a skill shortage in many of the trades because of this mentality. The irony is that many trades pay quite well over here. What is the situation over where you are?
-
My sister (a graduate student) said they were told in a Career Counseling course recently that there is a shortage of workers in vocational/trades here as well. That older workers aren?t retiring because there is no one to replace them. Years ago, the boys who weren?t academically inclined were usually those who took woodworking, metal shop, auto shop, etc. I don?t think most high schools offer those now. I tend to hear about them in rural districts but not in the cities/burbs.
In Texas, a teen can quit school at 17 with parental consent. Quitting prior to 17 requires a judge?s approval and I feel certain a condition of quitting would be to take and pass the GED. Kids who get in trouble with the law can be sent to Vocational ?BM? (residential) programs.
I can?t speak about the situation nationwide, but a few districts around here are building Vocational schools. One must be enrolled in the district in order to attend. I don?t know the particulars or what is offered.
The Texas Workforce Commission has a training program for ?at risk? 16-20 year olds. Must have a GED, under or unemployed, and meet the income requirement, among other criteria. If one qualifies the training is free and they can receive a stipend for gas/transportation. I think they may also pay for childcare for unwed moms. Not sure of what training options are available. It?s actually a pretty good program but not heavily publicized.
http://www.twc.state.tx.us/svcs/youthin ... th1203.pdf (http://www.twc.state.tx.us/svcs/youthinit/materials/osyyouth1203.pdf)
-
Deborah, I am not saying that suiing over a mistake mastectomy is running up the cost of malpractice insurance and thus the cost of health care.
Just how many malpractice lawsuits do you think are as serious as a mistake mastectomy??
I was not aware of Bush making any changes to the malpractice suit issue- just tht he wished to, but I wasn't aware that he actually managed to pull that off.
But seriously... if really, God Forbid, your loved one had died possibly because they took some drug which made them form a blood clot, or something along those lines... should you really receive $250 million for that??
Regarding C-sections- if you are so sure that these births could have been performed vaginally, then why not just birth babies at home? Years ago, death rates during childbirth were 1:5. You want to take your chances?? Go ahead. Maybe it will reduce the incidence of malpractice lawsuits and thus reduce the rates of malpractice insurance, and then there will be enough obstetricians to go around to deliver babies for those of us who consider a safe birth to be more important than our own egos and our ability to push a healthy baby out vaginally sans intervention.
If Americans weren't so sue-happy, then more obstetricians would be willing to forego a C-section and allow the mother to keep trying with the vaginal birth. But obstetricians must protect the baby as well as their license, both before the mother's ego. Otherwise, who will deliver all the babies to come after?
If you have that little faith in obstetricians, then birth your babies at home, without their help.
-
OH yes lets clamour for our government to fart gold coins and piss diamonds also.
The malpractice problem has been about long before Bush came into office.
And sorry Pls Help everyone pays taxes regardless of income bracket. We call the sales taxes, and other sorts of things rather than direct income taxes. Most people living under the poverty line get money back from the government rather than pay actual taxes.
-
I should have clarified.I meant inocme tax not a GST etc
-
For the most part people who exist in the low income tax bracket do not pay income taxes. They in fact get money back on their income tax returns at the end of the year.
That could be true for persons with dependents, but I prepared the tax return for a young adult for about 3 years whose gross was a little over $6000. Tax was paid.
This has been about four years ago, so I don't know what the poverty level was then. It is currently $9800, much too low.
For seniors- their SS benefits (average $7-900/mo) are tax free. If they choose to work or otherwise have income that exceeds $12,000, then they pay tax on the benefits as well.
-
I did have my babies at home, as stated in our previous discussion.
Re: Infant Mortality
Why does the wealthiest nation on the planet rank 23rd in infant mortality?
"The international standing of the U.S. [in terms of infant mortality rates] did not really begin to fall until the mid-1950s. This correlates perfectly with the founding of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist (ACOG) in 1951. ACOG is a trade union representing the financial and professional interests of obstetricians who has sought to secure a monopoly in pregnancy and childbirth services. Prior to ACOG, the U.S. always ranked in 10th place or better. Since the mid-1950s the U.S. has consistently ranked below 12th place and hasn't been above 16th place since 1975. The relative standing of the U.S. continues to decline even to the present."
[Stewart, David, "International Infant Mortality Rates--U.S. in 22nd Place." NAPSAC News, Fall-Winter, 1993, pages 36, 38.]
You said: ?Years ago, death rates during childbirth were 1:5.?
Can you cite that? It conflicts with my information.
In 1939, Baylor Hospital Charity Service in Dallas, Texas, published a study that revealed a perinatal mortality rate of 26.6 per 1,000 live births in homes compared to a hospital birth mortality rate of 50.4 per 1,000.
A six-year study done by the Texas Department of Health for the years 1983-1989 revealed that the infant mortality rate for non-nurse midwives attending homebirths was 1.9 per 1,000 compared with the doctors' rate of 5.7 per 1,000.(Texas Lay Midwifery Program, Six Year Report, 1983-1989, Berstein & Bryant, Appendix VIIIf, Texas Department of Health, I 100 West 49th St., Austin, TX 78756-3199.)
Re: Iatrogenic Deaths
What do you think is fair if a doctor prescribes a drug that causes a blood clot? Is the patient told of the risk and asked to sign an informed consent waiver? Was the patient monitored closely enough? There are often safer methods of treatment that carry no risk, but aren't approved by the AMA. That?s unfortunate.
Re: Medical Malpractice Myth
http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php? ... ice#103119 (http://wwf.avigation.net/viewtopic.php?p=103119&highlight=malpractice#103119)
When discussing tort reform, and particularly medical malpractice reform, it is helpful to know the size of the problem. How much money is paid out each year in medical malpractice judgments and settlements? That would seem to be a basic fact that needs to be established at the beginning of a public policy debate. After all, if we do not know the size of a problem, how can we ever decide on a solution?
The tort reform lobby and the scare tactic media almost never report that basic fact. If you do not believe me, go to Google News or Google and try to find the answer.
In my post, I noted that medical malpractice payments total a little over $4.2 billion per year. As I have previously noted, the total of all sums paid out in medical malpractice settlements and judgments is approximately the same as Estee Lauder?s sales of makeup. The total of payments in 2002 would have paid interest on the national debt for about eight days.
http://wampum.wabanaki.net/archives/000664.html (http://wampum.wabanaki.net/archives/000664.html)
Another interesting perspective:
One [insurance] scheme, $1.3 billion in fradulent billings [by doctors]. Just for comparison's sake, the total amount of all medical malpractice judgements and settlements paid in 2003 was $4.2 billion.
http://mithras.blogs.com/blog/2005/03/f ... lawsu.html (http://mithras.blogs.com/blog/2005/03/frivilous_lawsu.html)
Tort Reform:
Studies indicate that only a small fraction of medical mishaps become legal malpractice claims. (2-4%) Although the vast majority of doctors are not sued, a study involving New York doctors indicates that a majority who are sued have had multiple claims. Malpractice awards are brought against physicians, the hospitals, and other medical personnel. The rate of malpractice payments per physician has not appreciably changed although the rate does significantly vary from state to state. There has been an increase in the average payment but there has actually been a recent reduction in the cost of malpractice insurance premiums per physician.
Medical malpractice reform is at the forefront of the "tort reform" agenda of the Bush Administration because it combines the particular dissatisfaction of medical community with the overall concerns of insurers and businesses regarding the costs of the tort system.
Actual stats at the link:
http://www.newsbatch.com/tort.htm (http://www.newsbatch.com/tort.htm)
Bush wants medical tort reform to protect the pharm industry and doctors who are following his TMAP agenda- more expensive and risky drugs.
-
If you think it's a bad thing that 6 of your friends had C-sections, then why not encourage them to birth at home, as you did? Are all of their babies healthy?
A few reasons why the mortality rate could be higher with hospital, MD assisted births (versus home births): hospital deliveries include most of t he high-risk pregnancies, mid-wives will not accept these cases (it's difficult enough for mid-wives to practice in the first place). Also, there are just more germs in the hospital, and we all have to take that risk when we decide to go into a hospital for whatever reason.
The 1:5 mortality rate because of childbirth was a long time ago, like a couple hundred years ago, this was before we had safe C-sections and antibiotics. This is what I read in nursing school, and it's pretty much common knowledge.
I am not saying that it is "fair" for a patient to form a blood clot. Many times, particuarly with newer medications, we are not aware of all of the risks. Just look at Celebrex. And that laser eye treatment- the long term effects of it have yet to be seen.
I do think patients should sign waivers. Either that, or we just need serious malpractice lawsuit reforms.
As I have said before, people need to understand that our bodies are not computers, they will not always respond as we would like.
Additionally, there are risks in everything, including herbal treatments, ect... Just what "safer methods of treatment that carry no risk" are you talking about?
While I do not know specifically how much cash is paid out every year in malpractice awards, I do know the effects that malpractice suits bring on each and every doctor, healthcare provider, hospital, clinic and practice.
By the way, do you know the number of lawsuits brought against doctors/hospitals each year? I don't, but I figure that with the sort of money awarded to the plaintiffs in these cases (such as Celebrex, manufacture ordered to pay $250 million to one person) we only need one or two cases a year to have the kind of effects on healthcare that I see every day.
About billing fraud... I know one doctor who was investigated by Blue Cross Blue Sheild for "erroneous" billings. Yeah, the guy was a greedy jerk. I went to see him once for a suspected UTI... he wanted to do an abdominal xray (to rule out kidney stones), plus give me iv fluids! Totally ridiculous.
As I have said before, if you are a greedy jerk looking to make tons of money, medicine is not the field to go into. Most doctors know that going in, they don't expect to become super-wealthy, just to have a stable, challening career with a comfortable income.
My boyfriend (who is a doctor) was told that all doctors should expect an average of 2 lawsuits brought against them during their careers.
Most of these lawsuits are frivilous or not legitimate, so as a result, most of these lawsuits are dismissed. However, these lawsuits can have a profound effect in the psyche of the doctor, shaking their confidence, weakening the trust and relationship between doctor/patient, and driving up malpractice insurance rates.
I do not think that George Bush has honorable intentions in wanting to reform malpratice. He (and you too, Deborah) understands nothing about the actual practice of medicine. No offense. And by the way, if you were to come to my boyfriend's practice, I would advise him not to take you as a patient.
-
My argument was that C Sections are not performed only in emergencies, as you implied; but for other reasons, including- to avoid malpractice suits, which you stated. I?m still trying to understand how a surgery is less risky than a vaginal birth.
In testimony before the U.S. Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality, Marsden Wagner MD, European Director of the WHO, suggested the need in the U.S. for a "strong independent midwifery profession as a counterbalance to the obstetrical profession in preventing excessive interventions in the normal birth process."
'Mothering Magazine has calculated that using midwifery care for 75% of the births in the U.S. would save an estimated $8.5 billion per year." (Madrona, Lewis & Morgaine, The Future of Midwifery in the United States, NAPSAC News, Fall-Winter, 1993, p. 15 November 23, 1996 issue of the British Medical Journal.)
***A few reasons why the mortality rate could be higher with hospital, MD assisted births (versus home births): hospital deliveries include most of t he high-risk pregnancies, mid-wives will not accept these cases (it's difficult enough for mid-wives to practice in the first place). Also, there are just more germs in the hospital, and we all have to take that risk when we decide to go into a hospital for whatever reason.***
?Could be??. but isn?t:
"Every study that has compared midwives and obstetricians has found better outcomes for midwives for same-risk patients. In some studies, midwives actually served higher risk populations than the physicians and still obtained lower mortalities and morbidities. The superiority and safety of midwifery for most women no longer needs to be proven. It has been well established." (Madrona, Lewis & Morgaine, The Future of Midwifery in the United States, NAPSAC News, Fall-Winter, 1993, p.30)
Further:
three times greater likelihood of cesarean operation if a woman gave birth in a hospital instead of at home with the hospital standing by. The hospital population revealed twenty times more use of forceps, twice as much use of oxytocin to accelerate or induce labor, greater incidence of episiotomy (while at the same time having more severe tears in need of major repair). The hospital group showed six times more infant distress in labor, five times more cases of maternal high blood pressure, and three times greater incidence of postpartum hemorrhage. There was four times more infection among the newborn; three times more babies that needed help to begin breathing. While the hospital group had thirty cases of birth injuries, including skull fractures, facial nerve palsies, brachial nerve injuries and severe cephalohematomas, there were no such injuries at home. [Dr. Lewis Mehl, "Home Birth Versus Hospital Birth: Comparisons of Outcomes of Matched Populations." Presented on October 20, 1976 before the 104th annual meeting of the American Public Health Association. For further information contact the Institute for Childbirth and Family Research, 2522 Dana St., Suite 201, Berkeley, CA 94704]
***The 1:5 mortality rate because of childbirth was a long time ago, like a couple hundred years ago, this was before we had safe C-sections and antibiotics. This is what I read in nursing school, and it's pretty much common knowledge.***
Yes, I knew the 1:5 rate was a couple of centuries ago. I?d say a little more than a ?few? years ago, as you first stated. ?A few? sounds like 30, 40, 50. And if you know that, you also know that the primary reasons for lower mortality rates has to do with better sanitation (sewer installations), more food- better nutrition, clean water, etc? thanks to the ?Progressives?.
***Additionally, there are risks in everything, including herbal treatments, ect... Just what "safer methods of treatment that carry no risk" are you talking about?***
Answered that in an earlier post. I guess you didn?t read it.
***While I do not know specifically how much cash is paid out every year in malpractice awards, I do know the effects that malpractice suits bring on each and every doctor, healthcare provider, hospital, clinic and practice.***
You?d know if you?d read the link I provided. Are you engaged in the discussion or simply compelled to defend your boyfriend?s profession?
***By the way, do you know the number of lawsuits brought against doctors/hospitals each year? I don't***
You would if you had read my link.
***, but I figure that with the sort of money awarded to the plaintiffs in these cases (such as Celebrex, manufacture ordered to pay $250 million to one person) we only need one or two cases a year to have the kind of effects on healthcare that I see every day.***
I think you mean Vioxx? Cry me a river. When you conceal research findings that show risk of death, you probably should give some of the billions you earned back to the victims. But that?s just me. How bout those poor fuckers who went blind taking Viagra? Were they informed? Deserve any compensation?
***However, these lawsuits can have a profound effect in the psyche of the doctor, shaking their confidence, weakening the trust and relationship between doctor/patient, and driving up malpractice insurance rates.***
Rates have gone down. Malpractice suits are actually low. 2-4%. You?d know that if you read the links I provided. Perhaps medical students should consider the high risk involved with the profession before they invest in an education. I think it has more to do with the inadequateness of western medical training. They should consider being trained in ?Integrative? medicine so they have some safer options and aren?t so inclined toward unnecessary invasive procedures and risky drugs, except in crisis.
http://www.integrativemedicine.arizona.edu/ (http://www.integrativemedicine.arizona.edu/)
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/wei1bio-1 (http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/wei1bio-1)
You're right, Shrub isn't a doctor... but he sure knows how to protect the profits of daddy's cronnies at the Drug Houses.
-
I don't feel like reading every single link.
So either you see a Western doctor, or you don't. Plan to have your baby at home/birthing center, or plan to have it in a hospital. Assume the risks associated with taking drugs, or don't take them. Use some of your other treatments, which you think "post no risk". Seriously, could you elaborate on these treatments of which you speak? Go ahead.
Leave Western doctors alone. They work hard and with the best intentions.
I'm not just defending my boyfriend's work. I say these things because I am a nurse, and I see it first hand.
So if you think hospitals are so bad, stay out of them.
If you want to know how a surgery is less risky than a vaginal birth, well, I assure you, most of the time it is. I do have one friend who developed a nasty infection after a C-section, which I believe she got from maybe a contaminated OR. I do see more than one side of this, Deborah.
But her baby's heart rate was decelerating (a symptom of distress or low oxygen, and a common indication for C-section). It only takes minutes for an oxygen-deprived baby (or person) to suffer brain damage. Better safe than sorry. My friend may have had to deal with this infection, but her baby is healthy.
So if you want to birth your children at home, the choice is yours. But in the hospital setting, the doctors and nurses are not going to take those kinds of risks.
-
***If you want to know how a surgery is less risky than a vaginal birth, well, I assure you, most of the time it is.***
I don't want your assurance. I want you to cite data to support your comments. Your opinion conflicts with the research I've posted today.
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 28 percent of American women gave birth by cesarean delivery in 2003, up from 6 percent in 1970, 17 percent in 1980, and 23 percent in 1990. A c-section is major abdominal surgery, so it is riskier than a vaginal delivery. Moms who have c-sections are more likely to have an infection, excessive bleeding, blood clots, injuries to the bladder or bowel (though these are very rare), more postpartum pain, and a longer hospital stay. Plus, if you plan to have more children, each c-section you have increases your risk in future pregnancies of placenta previa and placenta accreta."
That's a lot of risk for moms and babies so docs "can avoid malpractice suits". I still can not figure how they think it lowers the possibility of a lawsuit. It's more invasive, with much higher risks of complications/death.
***But her baby's heart rate was decelerating (a symptom of distress or low oxygen, and a common indication for C-section).***
I was curious what might cause so many cases of decelerating heart rate that result in C Section. As I expected, intervention.
What are the disadvantages of EFM?
For baby: The mother?s immobility, and likelihood to remain on her back or semi-sitting, may decrease oxygen flow to the baby, creating the very problems EFM is monitoring for.
For parents: Unable to move around and limited choices of positions to ease labor pain and help labor progress. The noise from the monitor can be disturbing, though usually volume can be adjusted.
De-humanizing: Some mothers report that after the monitor is placed, caregivers and support people pay more attention to the readouts than to the mother herself. Lack of understanding of normal variations in heart beat can cause unwarranted anxiety in parents attempting to evaluate the results.
Most significant risk is unnecessary c-sections, due to potential for over-diagnosis of fetal distress in a healthy baby. There is a 1.3 to 2.7-fold increased likelihood of cesarean section with continuous EFM. The likelihood of c-section due to fetal distress diagnosis specifically is 2.0 ? 4.1-fold increase. The chance of operative delivery (including c-section, vacuum extractor, and forceps) is increased by about 30% with EFM.
Internal monitoring- Advantages: Similar to external monitor, but internal offers increased accuracy of readings. Disadvantages: Similar to external monitor, plus risk of infection from AROM, fetal infection from implantation of the electrode.
And what about that Morphine and Demerol. I'm sure they have a decelerating effect on fetal heart rate. How about that, they do.
"Parenteral pain medications for labor pain decrease fetal heart rate variability and may limit the obstetrician-gynecologist's ability to interpret the fetal heart rate tracing. Consideration should be given to other drugs in the setting of diminished short- or long-term fetal heart rate variability."
"Changes in fetal heart rate have been reported to be extremely common during conventional epidural analgesia14, 15,16."
***So if you want to birth your children at home, the choice is yours. But in the hospital setting, the doctors and nurses are not going to take those kinds of risks.***
I've not seen anything to substantiate that hospital births are less risky, but plenty to indicate the opposite. The data doesn't support your opinion, or training, whichever.
Gosh, do woman deserve to be informed? What if their doctor was required to inform them that births with midwives result in 1.9 deaths per 1,000 compared with the doctors' rate of 5.7 per 1,000 (7.8 now). Would that be fair?
-
The fact is that midwives in this country do not take high-risk cases. Call some and ask.
I would also propose that many women who seek out a midwife and a natural birth also may be more health-conscious and take better care of themselves than the many women who seek free obstetrics care at one of the many clinics (which obstetricians kindly lend their time and practice to, with little or no financial compensation).
I am not going to spend time researching statistics to prove a point to someone who appears to be a fanatical nutcase.
Midwives are great, sure, for women with low-risk pregnancies who don't mind long labors with lots of pain.
Anyway, here is some information from my Maternal-Newborn textbook from nursing school :
*indications for c-section include- herpes infection, nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns, prolapsed cord, breech or transverse position, hypertension, and feto-pelvic disproportion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every woman must decide for herself what risks she is and is not willing to take.
If there is concern that the baby is not getting enough oxygen or is not going to fit through the birth canal (both of these things happen naturally, don't try to pin them on medical interventions, they have been happening forever), then most women would err on the side of "better safe than sorry".
That is, those women who believe that having a healthy baby is more important than fulfilling her own ego by proving to that she can push that baby out herself.
-
Oh, I see. So birthing a baby the way nature intended is now considered an EGO trip?
Gotcha. Where is this culture headed?
Obstetricians and medical intervention are about as necessary as RTCs- once in a great while. They cause problems that require further treatment /intervention.
*indications for c-section include- herpes infection, nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns, prolapsed cord, breech or transverse position, hypertension, and feto-pelvic disproportion.
They forgot, doctor convenience, doctor incompetence, fear of malpractice suits, decelerating heart rate due to medical interventions.
-
Wow I stoped caring about this a long time ago.
-
Believe it or not, the universe does not revolve around you.
-
It will revolve around me, before it revolves around a person that refuses to take responsiblity for their words.
-
Hey, you'd make a great program counselor. Does it bother you that much that I dont sign my posts with some stupid moniker? A lot of control freaks around these boards today...
-
If a doctors fear of a child having brain damage is reason enough to not use doctors services, fine! Thats your choice.
If you do not respect the doctors' fear of lawsuits, fine, then stay away!
But FYI, fear of lawsuit is going to effect the care you get everywhere, from the doctors office to the ER to the ICU. Thats not our fault.
Go ahead and "birth the way nature intended". Thats your choice, I can only make that choice for me. But be prepared to accept the mortality rate that nature intended, as well.
-
That's the point Megan. I did a lot of searching and couldn't find anything to substantiate a high mortality rate for home/natural births and you provided nothing but an opinion.
Sorry you're taking this personally, but the argument you've presented so far sounds a whole lot like, "at risk, get your kid in a program else they'll end up deadinsaneorinjail."
It is discouraging that pregnant women are seen as being at risk and needing medical intervention when this is rarely the case. Nature doesn't make mistakes. Women can push their babies out and they're the healthier for it. More may choose to do so if they had support. Hard to do after that first seed of doubt has been planted.
I applaud the heroic efforts of doctors (and nurse midwives) when there are legitimate complications that aren't caused by unnecessary intervention during labor. That's all.
-
Let all women push babies out themselves... you'll see who's "healthier".
-
Sure we could manage. Do whatever you like... you want to skip out on vaccines and live without ibuprofen and risk having your newborn's head stuck in your pelvis and baby suffering brain damage... well, thats your choice.
Fine if you want to do things "as nature intended". Just be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Personally, I'm not interested in enduring an excruciatingly painful 20 hour labor. Fuck that. I want pain meds. Lots of them. And interventions. And a proper obstetrician. And a healthy baby.
-
"What nature intended" personifies nature into a deity.
Just want to clarify that we're talking about people's religious beliefs when we get into that "intended" stuff.
In religion, always, one woman's loopy is another woman's blasphemy is another woman's sacrament.
Everybody has core beliefs, and just about everybody feels very strongly about them.
The price of freedom is letting other people do things you don't like.
That's the price for all of us.
A woman's right to choose in such personal and private matters as the details of her labor and child birth touches on the most fundamental freedoms there are.
Obviously, if the specific birth is going badly, so that the woman's private choices start putting a full term baby in imminent danger of serious harm, society has to intervene on that baby's behalf.
However, that rarely happens.
I approve of state laws that require a caregiver attending a birth to be trained to recognize those complications, and responsible for calling for help in the births where they happen.
Other than that, ain't nobody's business but hers.
Julie
-
Bandit---I know you were not advocating choosing for others---that you were advocating the opposite.
My point was this isn't a discussion about facts. It's a religious discussion obscured by floating of facts people use when they talk about their religions to others.
Just this week I had my husband's grandfather talk to me about biblical prophecy concerning the destruction of Damascus and how biblical prophecy always came true, etc. I'm sure you've heard it.
There's no point discussing facts in religious arguments. The real issues are never facts, they're base premises about the nature of the universe and what we, as individuals, ought to do about it.
If one's base premise is that "nature" is distinct from "man" or "man-made" and that "nature" is better, then viewing the world through those lenses is going to color everything you see.
If one's base premise is that man is a terrestrial organism just like any other, that humans should value human life above that of other organisms, and that our development and use of technology is overall a good thing for solving our problems, viewing the world through those lenses is going to color everything you see.
Many, if not most, people have some sort of ambivalent half-stance between those two premises.
In a religious argument, facts are window dressing used to either try to gain converts to one's religion or out of some personal need to justify one's religious beliefs to others.
People don't pick their religion based on the facts, people pick their facts based on their religion.
This is the kind of discussion that can go on forever and get nowhere.
Julie
-
***"What nature intended" personifies nature into a deity.
Just want to clarify that we're talking about people's religious beliefs when we get into that "intended" stuff.***
Hadn?t thought of it that way. ?Naturally? is more accurate.
Many states require a Midwife to be a nurse and pass an exam. Mine was an RN.
-
Julie, you are right, this is about religion and peoples interpretation of "mother nature" and "god" and "science" and all that.
And I'm not willing to take the risks with my (hypothetical) babies that nature provides "naturally".