When being sodomized...?

blndrhed

Thinker
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
143
When being sodomized by the medical cartel, do you like to take it lubed or un-lubed? Is there a point when gross profiteering from conglomerates in the corporate sector becomes unacceptable to you? This is mainly to all those people who more than likely didn't watch "Sicko", but bitch incessantly about it.
 
I learned the best thing to do is to close my eyes, take a deep breath, exhale slowly, and then hum that immortal song by Frankie Goes To Hollywood.
 
I phrased it like that to get attention, and also be humorous. I'm sorry if anyone takes offense. I thought everybody here was an adult and would find it humorous. In defense of myself "sodomy" is the correct term for anal intercourse. It in no way is a vulgar term (just like "penis" or "vagina"). Believe me, if I was going for vulgarity. I could come up with some real doozies for anal intercourse. I'm kind of a fan of the lowbrow stuff ;-)
 
I phrased it like that to get attention, and also be humorous. I'm sorry if anyone takes offense. I thought everybody here was an adult and would find it humorous.

I don't think that's the main objection. Rather, I think it's that you don't seem to have any actual point, besides some undefined dissatisfaction. And the reason it's not funny isn't because it's too adult (purile humor appeals even more to juveniles anyways), but because it wasn't in the least bit clever or original.
 
Speaking as someone who has experienced the joy of OB/GYN office visits and childbirth, I tend to prefer lubed, but only if it is pre-warmed and doesn't smell funny and they give you enough $2 tissues to wipe with afterward.
 
Last edited:
The choice is between expensive, but rapidly-developing technology, or cheaper but less rapidly-developing technology.

If you think expensive medicine is a painful soddomization, imagine how you'd feel in the year 2007 getting "free" 1987-level technology.

The one thing you can't wish for, and get, is cheap, rapidly-developing technology. Reality doesn't work that way.
 
I don't think that's the main objection. Rather, I think it's that you don't seem to have any actual point, besides some undefined dissatisfaction. And the reason it's not funny isn't because it's too adult (purile humor appeals even more to juveniles anyways), but because it wasn't in the least bit clever or original.
Gee, you really hate my guts don't you, since I basically spanked you on the whole Iraq invasion legality post. That's what I love about you conservatives. Your all so freaking angry all the time. I think everybody should now refer to the GOP as the AWP, or "Angry, White-Guy, Party". Seriously, just relax a bit. You'll enjoy life so much more.


Please attack the argument and not the person making the argument.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The choice is between expensive, but rapidly-developing technology, or cheaper but less rapidly-developing technology.

If you think expensive medicine is a painful soddomization, imagine how you'd feel in the year 2007 getting "free" 1987-level technology.

The one thing you can't wish for, and get, is cheap, rapidly-developing technology. Reality doesn't work that way.
I'll personally take what ever cures me without leaving me destitute. You speak good buzzward you really should watch the movie. It does a good job of debunking that stuff. Anyway most of the advances in medicine come from government funded research. That's why they're are called "research grants", so where does the money come from for research? Our tax dollars. So how do you like them making insane amounts of profits off of what we already paid for in the first place. The whole issue isn't the quality of our medical care. Which, by the way is pretty bad. It's the insurance companies jacking the prices of healthcare to astronomical levels. Do you like living in a country where insurance executives might have eight mansions, five luxury boats and twelve automobiles, while people are financianally ruined everyday because of medical bills. I speak as a person whose mother died when I was eighteen years old of lymphoma because Blue Cross refused to cover her for a bone marrow transplant saying it was "experimental". The procedure was delayed four months while we went to the state board to apeal. She died shortly after. I honestly hope you never get a catastrophic illness in this country. My mother was 44 years old when she died.
 
Gee, you really hate my guts don't you,

No, I really don't. I don't respect you, but you're not on the right track to me hating you.

since I basically spanked you on the whole Iraq invasion legality post.

Keep dreaming.

That's what I love about you conservatives.

Funny how you think you know my political persuassions based upon a shallow reading of only one issue.

Your all so freaking angry all the time.

Said the man who opened this thread using sodomy as a metaphor for health insurance.
 
I speak as a person whose mother died when I was eighteen years old of lymphoma because Blue Cross refused to cover her for a bone marrow transplant saying it was "experimental". The procedure was delayed four months while we went to the state board to apeal. She died shortly after. I honestly hope you never get a catastrophic illness in this country. My mother was 44 years old when she died.

I'm sorry for your loss. But in order to say that she died because Blue Cross denied a particular treatment, you would need to demonstrate that the treatment was not only going to improve her chances, but would have assured her survival. And unfortunately, that just isn't the case. Maybe she would have survived with treatment, and maybe she should have been given the treatment, but the sad reality is that it's quite possible she would have died regardless.

Furthermore, socialized medicine doesn't prevent this sort of thing from happening either. There always is, and always will be, less resources available than we would like to have. Had you been living in, say, Canada, it's quite possible that the doctors would simply have said, "there's nothing more we can do", and that's it. Socializing medicine (which I take to be Moore's goal) doesn't prevent people from deciding that certain patients can't have certain treatments even if there's a chance it might save them. It only changes who makes that decision. And if you don't think government beaurocrats can be just as callous and heartless as corporate CEO's, you haven't been around long enough.
 

Back
Top Bottom