US Goverment coul possible be able to shut down internet

You're a funny little thing, aintcha?

I do have a "dog in this fight". We have socialized health care up here and you people are falling over each other in declaring it the worst thing since Bergen Belsen. As Canadians, we are closely tied to your fortunes and once again we're scratching our heads, thinking "Oh, those crazy Americans are at it again."

As a nation, we're a pretty healthy lot. Why are you assuming that your government is less competent than mine in trying to figure out a process that works, not just for rich people, but for all?
Yes, there will be growing pains no matter what system is going to be worked out.

Some of your assertions are just plain nonsense, if not just a bit loopy. You can shout all you want, but you won't convince people by getting ruder and more strident with every post.

Yes, now of course you'll call me rude for calling you loopy and so on, but after reading these last pages I absolutely can't figure out what you're trying to accomplish with this. You accuse your government of tyranny and oppression yet you feel free to browbeat those who oppose you here? It's practically Limbaughian.

So my original question stands: if you are so right in what you believe, isn't there a more effective audience for you than an international forum about an online environment?

High and mighty? I'm sorry - I get annoyed when people make things personal or make childish attacks, as you did Josh.

I was not high and mighty with anyone.

Eli took a shot at me for no reason. Yes I thought he should apologise for it. What do you care?

Did you really need to post just to chime in with someone ELSE's small minded personal attack, and reiterate your earlier dig?

Didn't realise you were such a hypocrite.

Yes I think SL is at its best when everyone chips in for the common good. Too bad the forums are so pissy lately. They could be the same way.

Brann tell me why you feel compelled to take shots at a total stranger? Isn't there a better place to do that, or to argue the issue of health care, or to tout the virtues of your home country, than a game forum?



Take your own advice.

I was debating the issue until people made it nasty and personal. How about yourself?

Or is "nonsense" and "just a bit loopy" constructive debate?

Who are "you people," exactly? And who mentioned Canada much if at all? I tried to stay away from finger pointing. I think I mentioned it by name one time.

I did not compare Canadian health care to a concentration camp either. I was merely stating that just because something seems Utopian in its publicity materials, does not mean that it IS. (I was referring to state run hospitals of the past. In specific a notorious snakepit which Jojo pointed out had occupational therapy.) Just because the residents could supposedly plant things, doesn't negate abuse. (Or even that the publicity is true.)

That point wasn't getting across at first. So I gave an extreme but factual example.

I also do not know why you are acting like I am the only one debating this issue. Is it opinions you have a problem with, or just mine? Am I the only one talking about health care in a game forum? Is this the first time such topics have been debated?

You are clearly just trolling and baiting, so welcome to my ignore list.

This debate stopped being constructive the moment it went off topic.
Now it's just a platform for your opinions.

I am not touting the virtues of my country. I am offering an ACTUAL, FACTUAL example, based on EXPERIENCE, of socialized health care that is working.
According to your previous posts, that experience is something you value.

Are things perfect up here? No, of course not. Are they better than on your side of the border? From what I gather, yes.

I'm not "compelled" to take shots at perfect strangers. Since you did so by the namecalling you did with Jojogirl earlier, I thought that's how you liked things.

Clarissa said, "I'll go with the input of people who know their stuff rather than any govt. study."

I have worked in health care, in direct patient care for decades. I'm an Independent voter, involved in local and state politics, and have little patience for the extreme views of either the far right or far left. It's funny to see those extremes even here in the remote SL forums world, but I'm not afraid to talk a bit here, Lord knows I've done enough talking to real life groups and newspapers. I do get a kick out of it when I see Rush-isms used here on the forums (good example: "Teleprompter-in-Chief", I actually listen to him sometimes so I can know what is really being said there. (The dude's insane..seriously.)

One thing I'd like to explain very clearly, because there is so much misinformation flying around, is about the "Death Panels". Please try to read this with an open mind, it's very important, and could also help you understand why many people "in the know" are very disturbed by the controversy.

There's not any death panel being proposed. What the bill is talking about has to do with Advanced Directives. Advanced Directives are NOT NEW. They've been around longer than me. They include a Living Will, Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, and DNR (do not resuscitate order).

Living Will: This document is a voluntary legal document in which a person states his or her preferences for end-of-life decisions. Do they wish to be kept on a ventilator if brain dead? Will they allow placement of feeding tubes if they become unable to eat or drink?

Durable Power of Attorney: This is a relative or other close associate of the patient who the patient has chosen and legally written up documents identifying them as the person who will make medical decisions for them if they become unable to do so, i.e. brain death, Alzheimers, etc.

DNR (do not resuscitate order): This is a signed physician order that indicates the patient wishes NOT to receive CPR or cardiac defibrillation if he or she goes into cardiac arrest. If I'm at a patient's house, they have a DNR order and suddenly have a heart attack, I am not legally allowed to call 911, start CPR, but instead to stay with them as they pass away and provide any support the family needs. This order requires the patient or Durable Power of Attorney to request it and have it signed by their physician. Some people have a DNR because they have a limited life expectancy due to cancer, heart disease, etc. Others have it for religious reasons or other personal reasons.

The portion of the bill that has been receiving so much attention, and is the subject of quite a bit of deliberate misleading statements, is directly related to Advanced Directives. In the past and present, if a patient wishes to have an appointment with their physician to discuss their choices on end-of-life decisions, Medicare and other insurances generally deny to pay for this visit. It is considered "not medically necessary". This is the most important part. What the bill says is that it will require insurances to cover this visit. It absolutely does not say that all patients must have this visit with their doctor, or any imaginary death panel. Advanced Directives are simply a CHOICE that patients have had for a long time, and will continue to have, and requiring insurances to cover elective visits with their doctor to discuss it is the change proposed.

How I see this affect people on a daily basis, and what I wish Sarah Palin, Chuck Grassley and Rush Limbaugh would see, is the absolute fear they have driven into the elderly with their deliberately misleading statements. On numerous occasions I have had to comfort old ladies bawling their eyes out because they just saw Sarah Palin on Fox News telling them they will be taken before a stern panel of government officials who is going to decide if they go on a respirator or not. These are people who are already facing a complicated, stressful physical condition, they are already frightened, and they are being told they do not matter..when what actually is going on is that this bill portion is only clarifying the long-standing Advanced Directives and that voluntary (stress, voluntary) visits to discuss their own personal choices will now be covered by insurance. That's it. No death panel. The reason this is so important is because this particular subject is the primary reason why most people out there in real life are opposed to this bill. They have been led to believe it will rob them of their free choice over their own bodies, and they will be taken to some dark government room. Seriously.

I totally respect anyone who has taken the time to really research it, not on Fox or ABC but to really, objectively research it. No matter how you feel about this bill, please do take the care not to help spread the misleading information. This is why it is such a hot topic, because people who know about all this are aware of the huge amount of misinformation, and the people throwing it about will not listen. It's a killer cycle.

Esquieval, great comments regarding community health options earlier. I work in the field for many years. Here's how things work in our state. The agency is reimbursed an average of $2500 for a month of care at home following hospitalization or other acute change in health. (Comparison: most nursing home stays of 30 days around here cost about $300 a day). If a person needs therapy at home, say after a broken hip, or has a wound requiring more visits and expensive dressings, the reimbursement is 2-3 times higher. The easiest and most efficient insurances to work with are the government-run agencies (Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans Administration). Requirements are clear, limitations are clear, and deadlines are set. We're required as home care providers to teach the patient and family to learn to manage their disease at home. Years ago, if I had someone with a large bedsore that would take months to heal, Medicare would pay for daily nursing visits until the wound was completely healed. After the Medicare reform years ago, the key now is education. Basically what they did was, in order to help control costs and improve outcomes, instead of reimbursing agencies for each visit made, the agency is instead paid according to patient needs and outcome. For example, if I see a woman who is continent, able to walk with a cane, and able to dress and feed herself with minimal effort, the agency will receive significantly less reimbursement to heal that wound. Why? Well, wounds are more likely to heal faster if the patient is ambulatory, has control of their functions, and has decent nutrition and activity. If I see a woman who is stuck in bed due to paralysis, has to wear Depends, and relies on someone else for all her personal needs, the reimbursement rate is much higher because Medicare knows already that the cost to heal this wound will be 2-3 times as much.

So we also teach. Family members or sometimes even the patient are taught how to perform their dressing changes. The nurse comes by 3 times a week, instead of daily, to monitor healing and continue providing teaching and look for complications. We now use dressings that often cost more per dressing, but that research shows provide significantly better, faster healing and less frequent dressing changes and nursing visits..saving money AND improving outcomes.

The Medicare reform a decade or so ago caused a lot of groaning at first. It was largely based on outcomes, which frankly shouldn't it be? Outcomes mean your care is effective or not effective. But it did require that hospitals, home health agencies, etc get in a TOTALLY different frame of mind. No longer was it just about providing dependent care but about making sure what you're doing is effective both in outcomes and cost. A lot of home care agencies went under at first. Big changes like that are hard. What we have today though, is patients healing faster and at greater cost savings, and patients and families taking a more active role in their disease process. They can't just rely on the nurse to keep coming every day for a year and make it all better. The agency can't rely on $125 a day coming in to go see them every day for a year.

Private insurance in the home care field is a nightmare. Claims are denied left and right, and sometimes for stunning reasons. We had a case, for example, where about $18,000 was denied reimbursed to our agency because the patient had to be seen on an emergent basis over the weekend, and because there was no one at the insurance office to deal directly with it, pre-approval was not received. We saw the patient anyway because they needed it and had a physician order. All following visits were denied by the insurance company because of this. I wish I was kidding. We have one insurance nurse at the office whose only job is to deal with the incredible demands of the private insurance agencies. They also TOTALLY control patient's lives: We can have a signed doctor's order stating the patient needs this care, and the private insurance agencies will go to any length possible to deny coverage for visits. Yes, we go anyway, and lose a lot of money. Sometimes the patient winds up paying out of pocket because they need the care, yet the insurance says no way. And the agencies cannot be expected to provide everything for free and still stay afloat.

All Medicare, VA and Medicaid require for "pre-approval" is that the patient needs the care (you're not just going out seeing them to make money when they don't need the help) and that a physician has ordered it. The government-run agencies are extremely efficient and cost-effective.

Anyway, for anyone who has bothered to read this entire long-winded post, I hope this helps. The nice thing about SL forums is my letter won't be cut to 1/8 its size by the newspaper, or shoved in a drawer at my congressman's desk

Eh, Brann. You better stop that "trolling and baiting". Harper is on line one and is ready to send you to the Iqualuit death camps if you don't behave.

Oh please. You are using Jojo as an excuse to jump down my throat with both feet.

What have YOU said aside from calling us all "crazy Americans," (I get so freaking sick of American-bashing while we're on that topic!), saying your country does it better, and calling me names? I don't see any 'facts' there. But you know what? Opinions are fine! Just don't in the same breath try and gut me from head to toe for doing exactly what you just did.

And I'm sorry did Jojo tell me I need a tinfoil hat and all that other crap in more than one post before I let loose on her, or not?

Shame on me for replying to yet ANOTHER of your mean spirited posts that are only there to bait and troll toward me - AND this topic. Which you're claiming I took off topic? No I did not, but since when are you forum cop?

It bugs me when people misquote and take things so badly out of context on purpose. I haven't accused govt. of tyranny. What I ACTUALLY SAID was that putting all the decisions for health care and all the power in ONE source could be exploited by tyrants.

Is that news to anyone??

Oh and yeah! To add a quick p.s. to my long-winded post above! I think the original topic was shutting down the internet. I just read a funny article that said some of the best ways to do that include learning deep sea fishing (the nets are responsible for many incidents of internet shutdown) and Shark training.

Jack I thank you for not making it TOO personal - other than for some reason addressing this paragraph to me. I did express concern about care being denied the elderly in a separate thread, I think it was some weeks ago. I have not even mentioned it in this current debate.

I honestly am not sure what I have said - as pertaining to the actual health care issues - that has got a few people foaming at the mouth. I tend to think it's instead either something personal or they are extra bored today and feel like taking swipes at somebody.

I do apologise for stooping to that level. I'll just hold my breath waiting for their apology in return, shall I?

But please Jack do not make it seem as if I have even used the phrase "death panels" - or as if I believe in such a thing literally. I hate my actual views being twisted that way. Denying the elderly the same care someone younger would receive was my actual concern and I expressed that in a thread that's not active any more. Just to be fair.

If people don't want examples like "Nazi propaganda films" being used at all then kindly stop using "death panels" and such in their own arguments. Hyperbole cuts both ways.

I will read your post from there after I get some sleep, Jack. I am eager to see your input and what your own personal experiences bring to the discussion.

I did not say YOU took the course off topic. I didn't say my country was better. I said our health care was. Talk about misquoting.

With "you people" I meant the group of people who are opposing the current goings-on without having all the facts. Like the guy who stood up and said "keep your government hands off my medicare".
This isn't just about you. But you've taken the lead here for your side of the debate, so like it or not, that's where the comments are landing.

Trying to shut people down by accusing them of trolling is just lame.

Trolling and baiting can be very effecting in the seal hunt up there.

I said DOES IT better.

Try reading for a change.



Sure sounds like you were referring to my posts.

And I guess no one else's posts count, only mine? I was talking to myself and Jojo, Chris, Josh and Esquivel are all alts. Right.

hah, you're right. I guess we both can't read

I agree.

ya know, after everything in-world and about in-world, then added on top: the forum(s)(yes, various ones) these past couple of weeks, i gotta admit...


maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea...

I've been thinking the same about LL and these forums actually. And I include myself in that among the guilty.

That's ok, I actually had your name in there in response to your statement, "I'll go with the input of people who know their stuff rather than any govt. study." You did not use the term anywhere in this thread, but several posts have related to denial of care. Generally, 'death panels' is the term being used in describing the feelings that elderly will be denied care based on that Advanced Directives misinformation that is flying around, which is why it seemed appropriate to use, so I'm not sure I understand your last statement. But no, nothing was directed specifically at you, except for the request for input from people involved.

As far as the Nazi thing goes, that's one of those extreme side phrases that really just is inappropriate to use in any case. (I don't know who posted about Nazis..but whoever it was.) The Nazis inflicted terrible evils in this world, and to use it to describe Obama's government, or Bush's government, or frankly any American government or system we have in place here, is very disrespectful to the memories of those who died or lost loved ones in WWII. It also trivializes that evil.

That's what would be nice to get past. The toughest thing is trying to see objectively. When one side is showing up at rallies with guns and threats, and holding up signs saying "Obama wants to kill your Mama"..the lack of rationality in the face of plain facts just makes it hard for anyone to get their rationale voices heard. There's frankly no way that one side will make the other side see their point of view, although I am a hopeful person and hope that people saw the explanation of my earlier post on Advanced Directives and maybe it will help ease a few minds really stressed out with the misinformation.

Okay. It was in there twice (beginning a paragraph with my name) so I just wanted to clarify on that one point. There's been too much emotion and misquoting going around as it is.

About "Nazi" references. I agree with you mostly. But again to clarify - I used it as an example of how evil can be covered over with propaganda. I was not actually referring to the health care bill but was specifically talking about a very bad, state run hospital that Jojo "seemed to be" countering couldn't be all that bad because it had occupational therapy there.

The Nazis used propagandistic images, films, posters, etc., very effectively. In this case I felt it made a perfect analogy, because in both instances the evil was covered over with a public image that was fabricated. Specifically, that the inmates were happy and productive.

I'm sure the parents who left their children at Willowbrook were told the children were well cared for also. The truth was far from that - it was a living nightmare.

But I did not mean to water down the word simply by using it, and if it offended you then I apologise. It was not intended as offensive.

I do however also feel that to stop talking about those evils completely, or comparing them to similar nightmare situations, is to run a risk of forgetting them. In this case I felt it appropriate. But no offense was meant. I do not use the word often, if that helps.

It's a constant problem, Clarissa; English is Brann's third language apparently . . .

Pep ( . . . and her comprehension deficiencies surface quite a lot.)

Short answer:
no they cannot shut down the internet. They could (but it would take very long to accomplish), order local ISP's to dissable client connectivity to the internet itself. But again, the internet cannot be shut down anymore. Disabling connectivity for some users means they cannot utilize it, but the rest of the world will.
If they could:
it would mean, that the world is in danger, cos everything nowadays goes through the internet. (either with use of a vpn or not). (emails, finances, trades, sales, etc etc etc)

So, your thesis is false, and therefore not thesis.

I occasionally find the adds for various drugs that are run on TV Humorous...

1. A drug to regrow hair in balding men ... with a warning about sexual side effects. Well whats the point of regrowing hair to get the partner if you cant do anything once you do.

2. Numerous drugs that assist men in gaining erections ... with a warning about erections lasting 4 hours. Ok I know why that is dangerous but sheesh how many guys wouldnt bless one lasting that long?

Yes I am trying to lighten things up a tad here.

And judging from your self-professed background, you know soooo much about politics and issues.

[EDIT] No, I take that back. And I apologize to you and Brann. Sorry, you guys pushed one of my hot buttons. Both sides can sling both horror stories and success stories in this area. Can we simply agree that we have different opinions on this and move on?

Because they ARE our Government. We know them, all too well. Much like LL, history has shown them to mess pretty much anything they get their hands on. I have a health plan that I pay for myself, and I like it. I don't want that taken away, not saying that will happen. As long as I can continue to use it to manage my healthcare, the G can do whatever they want, if it gets helathcare to people that need it, fine, even if I will pay through the nose for it.

I got smething like this for my mother, she recently fell in her bedroom broke her arm hit her head passed out and it was not till morning that her hospice worker found her.. I called her that evening before, but while the midnight hours lurk... I need something to watch over her.

I know its a big joke and all, but it is a bit of security for us when out loved ones refuse to not live on their own.