Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:September:25 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2007/9/25-27 [Recreation/Dating] UID:48179 Activity:moderate
9/24    bitter no sex guy here.  i'm editing the motd right now instead
        of having sex.
        \_ Me neither, I haven't had any for a while. You wanna have sex
           with me?                     -bitter I hate Asian women guy
           \_ So, you think gay sex is preferable to no sex with women?
              \_ It works in prison
2007/9/25 [Health/Men] UID:48180 Activity:nil 54%like:48184
9/25    Is There Anything Good About Men?
2007/9/25 [Recreation/Dating] UID:48181 Activity:nil
9/25    Girls, ladies, wtf, really, you know what I'm talking about. I can
        jerk off during sex, is there something wrong with your vaginas that
        you're afraid of touching your own shit?
        Touch yourself for christ's sake. Are you afraid of having an orgasm?
        Cause you shouldn't be, you can have another one, it's not fucking
        hard, friction, think of brad pitt, I DO NOT FUCKING CARE, just touch
        thank you!
2007/9/25-27 [Health/Disease/AIDS, Health/Disease/General] UID:48182 Activity:very high
9/25    So, anyone know offhand *why* healthcare costs are going up
        at 3x inflation?  What is driving this insane inflation in
        health costs?  Are health costs snowballing because more and
        more are uninsured, forcing the fewer and fewer insured to
        pay more and more to cover the uninsured?  If so, is this
        a government-created crisis, because hospitals by law cannot
        turn away those without health insurance, and so they *must*
        screw their fewer and fewer remaining paying customers?
        *Where is all that money going?*  --PeterM
        \_ You are a scientist, Peter.  Pretend American healthcare is a
           natural system.  What experiments would you set up to figure this
           out? -- ilyas
           \_ [serious callers only]
           out?  [Have something to contribute other than a retarded troll and
           you won't be deleted.] -- ilyas
        \_ Self follow-on--some claim doctors are receiving the
           lion's share of the increase in cost as salary.  Is that
           true?  Are we being driven bankrupt by a lot of greedy
           fucking doctors?  Or are they merely responding to
           increased malpractice costs?  --PeterM
           \_ It's not going to doctors who, on an hourly basis, make less
              now than doctors did 30 years ago. Most doctors have had to
              see a lot more patients to keep their salaries flat. Doctors
              say that the money is going to the HMOs. It should be easy
              to verify that by looking at their profits. My guess is that
              \_ Not necessarily, it could be the 'dead hand' effect. -- ilyas
              the money is going to more expensive and complicated procedures
              like MRIs and heary bypass surgery that were almost unheard
              like MRIs and heart bypass surgery that were almost unheard
              of in the 1970s and which are now extremely common. Valve
              transplants, chemotherapy, and the like are very expensive.
              Some procedures have been made cheaper with, for example,
              laproscopy, but there are so many new ones and the technology
              and drugs are expensive. Before health costs were cheaper
              because you *died*. Now medicine can keep you alive for a
              large fee.
           \_ i just heard it was to fund the bureaucracy that is American
              health care
        \_ Hint: what causes inflation?
           \_ Answer: increase in the money supply.  There is more money
              chasing after the services.  Now, why is there more money doing
              \_ People don't want to die. For most it's worth it to pay
                 $1000/month in insurance to avoid dying when you need
                 that $150K surgery. Some treatments (like for HIV) cost
                 in excess of $1M.
                 \_ I'm not sure I agree with your explanation.  Yes, people
                    don't want to die, and there is more money chasing
                    services, but isn't that because people are living much
                    longer, and, generally speaking, older individuals need
                    more medical care and have more money to pay for it?
                    \_ "need more medical care" = "not wanting to die"
                       No one *needs* medical care. It may not seem like a
                       conscious choice, but it is. Examine how people
                       respond when faced with a terminal illness. Some
                       people choose to go home and die quietly. Others
                       choose to spend thousands and thousands of dollars
                       on treatment that probably won't help. More people
                       are choosing to use expensive medical services and
                       that is why they are living longer. Of course,
                       there is a cost to doing so - a cost that a whole
                       society seems willing to bear so far, although I
                       think we are getting close to the breaking point.
                       \_ Um, by your rationale, no one needs food.  I find
                          your viewpoint to be either exceptionally stupid or
                          exceptionally crass.  Also, terminal illnesses are,
                          by definition, uncurable.  The current attitude
                          toward treating terminal illnesses isn't one of
                          trying to cure them, but of trying to provide a
                          patient with an acceptable level of quality of life.
                          This need not be expensive, e.g., morphine is cheap.
                          \_ You think that we are not trying to treat/cure
                             terminal illnesses like AIDS and cancer? Get over
                             your gut-level reaction to my response and read
                             what I am saying, which is that people are choosing
                             expensive medical care versus dying. Do you
                             dispute that? The reason people did not
                             choose that medical care before is because it
                             did not exist. That doesn't mean it needs to
                             exist. Just because some people have Ferraris
                             doesn't mean we all are entitled to one. BTW,
                             we don't need medical care like we need food.
                             It's perfectly possible to live to 60-70-80
                             years old without ever seeing a doctor.  People a
                             century ago lived that long and longer - maybe
                             not as many of them, but that's life. Medicine is
                             extending lives and that is very much a choice
                             people make.
                             people make. My gf's grandma had a valve
                             transplant at 87 years old. She's now 93. 100
                             years ago she'd be dead, but society said
                             it's worth $150K (or whatever) to give her
                             another 5-10 years of life.
                             \_ Thank you for proving my point. -dans
                             \_ Medical care is a human right. -dans
                                \_ No.
                                   \_ From the UN Declaration of Human Rights:
                                      Article 25.
                                         \_ This document is a joke, and is
                                            even self-conflicting.
                                            See Article 17
                                            \_ Kindly cite a document you deem
                                               to be worthy of your eminence.
                                      (1) Everyone has the right to a standard
                                      of living adequate for the health and
                                      well-being of himself and of his family,
                                      including food, clothing, housing and
                                      medical care and necessary social
                                      services, and the right to security in
                                      the event of unemployment, sickness,
                                      disability, widowhood, old age or other
                                      lack of livelihood in circumstances
                                      beyond his control.
                                      Your welcome to disagree, but, as I said
                                      earlier this makes you either a) stupid
                                      or b) an asshole. -dans
                                      \_ Figuring out what is a human right is
                                         a problem for philosophers, not
                                         something you leave up for the UN to
                                         define.  Fuck the UN.  -- ilyas
                                      \_ The American notion of human rights
                                         tends to be more along the lines of
                                         what's outlined in our Declaration of
                                         Independence.  Specifically, I'm
                                         thinking of "Life, liberty, and the
                                         pursuit of happiness."  What you're
                                         talking about is guaranteeing the
                                         success of an individual's pursuit
                                         of happiness.  This is a popular
                                         notion with the political left, and
                                         I appreciate that they have the best
                                         of intentions, but their intent is
                                         not sufficient to transform success
                                         into a natural human right.
                                         \_ I'm an American.  What gives you
                                            the right to generalize about the
                                            "American" notion of human rights?
                                            Furthermore, the idea that human
                                            rights differ from one nationality
                                            to the next is spectacularly
                                            stupid.  And, no, I'm not talking
                                            about guaranteeing the successful
                                            pursuit of happiness, I'm talking
                                            about the pursuit of *life*.
                                            Also, line originally read "Life,
                                            liberty, and the pursuit of
                                            property", but that doesn't read
                                            as well. -dans
                                      \_ I'm the pp and I am not the
                                         person who wrote "No". However, I
                                         agree to the extent that a
                                         minimal level of healthcare is a
                                         right. That doesn't mean all
                                         healthcare is a right.
                                      \_ I disagree because I think a right
                                         cannot be something that must be
                                         supplied by someone else.  Since someone
                                         must provide health care, it cannot
                                         be a right.
                                         \_ Well, everything is provided by
                                            someone else. Food, clothing, clean
                                            water, etc. Police/fire/security
                                            is also provided by someone else.
                                             \_no.  liberty can be taken by
                                               someone, but it is not "provided"
                                            \_ I wouldn't call any of those things
                                               you list rights.  Free speech, and
                                               bearing arms are rights, food is
                                            \_ I wouldn't call any of those
                                               things you list rights. Free
                                               speech, and bearing arms are
                                               rights, food is not.
                                               \_ Apparently you don't really
                                                  understand the concept of
                                                  Human Rights. -dans
                                      \_ What is "adequate" medical care? As
                                         has been mentioned, there is virtually
                                         no limit to what could be spent in
                                         medical efforts. Perhaps it should be
                                         the right to *access* medical care.
                                         (I also don't think the "right to
                                         housing" is implemented in this
                                         country. Maybe I didn't get the memo.)
                                         \_ That we as a society and a species
                                            fail to implement the ideal of
                                            human rights does not mean we
                                            should not strive to do so. -dans
                                            \_right. But the fact that striving
                                              to provide "positive" rights often
                                              results in a net loss of rights,
                                              should give us pause in our do-gooder
                                              zeal.  See _The Road to Smurfdom_
                                              by F.A. Hayek. -phuqm
                                            \_ right. But the fact that
                                               striving to provide "positive"
                                               rights often results in a net
                                               loss of rights, should give us
                                               pause in our do-gooder zeal.
                                               See _The Road to Smurfdom_ by
                                               F.A. Hayek. -phuqm
                                              \_ Um, no. -dans
                                      \_ I disagree because I think a right
                                         cannot be something that must be
                                         supplied by someone else.  Since someone
                                         must provide health care, it cannot
                                         be a right.
                                         \_ Well, everything is provided by
                                            someone else. Food, clothing, clean
                                            water, etc. Police/fire/security
                                            is also provided by someone else.
                                             \_no.  liberty can be taken by
                                               someone, but it is not "provided"
                                            \_ I wouldn't call any of those
                                               things you list rights. Free
                                               speech, and bearing arms are
                                               rights, food is not.
                                               \_ Apparently you don't really
                                                  understand the concept of
                                                  Human Rights. -dans
                                                  \_ No, I just think mixing up
        things that must be provided (medical care) with things that just
        shouldn't be taken away (freedoms) is a very basic cognative mismatch.
        Certainly everyone having food and medical care is a good thing, but
        they are not rights. You can disagree, but it's evidence that you can't
        reason clearly.  A problem I see a lot these days.
        \_ It seems there's lots of mixing from all sides.  You're equating
           "rights" and "freedoms".  Rights are what the social contract allows
           one to justly claim.  As such, I personally believe access to health
           care and education should be defined as "rights" in this wealthy
           country of ours.  Freedom is an interesting word.  The realm of free
           men.  Hmm..  Check FDR's four freedoms speech.  There's a lot more
           muddiness than you seem willing to admit.  You're treading into
           "what are we as a nation" territory with blinders on.  --scotsman
           \_ Who said anything about restricting this to our nation?
              \_ Well, as you're claiming medical care isn't a right, you're
                 not talking about most of Europe, or even most of the
                 developed world, other than US.  Do you know what you're
                 saying? --scotsman
                    \_ Insurance and gov't funded medicare/aid is funneling
                       tons of money into health care.  The 3rd party payer is
                       making sure no one knows how much anything costs.  Only
                       now with HSAs are we encouraging people to pay attention
                       to costs.  Some of the money is going to administrative
                       costs of dealing with insurance/medicare reimbursement.
                       \_ You think medicare is less transparent than HMOs
                          and medical insurance companies?  How much of
                          Medicare spending would you say goes to
                          administrative costs?
                          \_ Medicare is significantly more transparent than
                             private health insurance plans/companies.
                             Medicare's administrative costs are exceptionally
                             low, i.e. under 5%.  This is all well documented,
                             and can be easily verified with a simple google
                             search. -dans (not pp)
                             \_ Have you ever actually known anyone on MC?  I
                                do.  I'd rather have the opaque HMO/POS/PPO
                          \_ Transparancy isn't the issue. It's the issue of
                             knowing what insurance/medicare will or won't
                             cover, submitting requests for reimbursement, etc.
                             \_ How or why is this an issue?  Yeah, insurance
                                could be less complex/more user friendly but,
                                it's not that complicated.  Filing an
                                insurance claim is certainly no more complex
                                than filing taxes, and most people seem
                                capable of doing that. -dans
                                \_ LOL! Re: Taxes
                                   My neighbor is a doctor and when his
                                   stay-at-home wife finally decided to
                                   help out in the office she found
                                   thousands of dollars in claims that had
                                   not been paid to him. There's a lot of
                                   following up that has to be done and
                                   the process is VERY complicated. He has
                                   a staff of maybe 4 people to handle
                                   this for his practice, which has 3
                                   other partners, and his wife (who has a
                                   vested interest in it and thus did a
                                   better job than the staff did) found all
                                   of this mess. Have you ever had a major
                                   illness? If you have you'd know that even
                                   the people billing you have no idea what you
                                   do or do not owe. It takes months or even
                                   years for it all to be sorted out and
                                   even then there's probably still money
                                   on the table that no one bothers tracking.
                                   It's a big game where the insurance
                                   company refuses to pay until you retain a
                                   lawyer (more $$$) and they can have
                                   their doctors examine you and so on.
                                   \_ I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.  The
                                      situation where you need to hire a
                                      lawyer to get your insurance to pay out
                                      is an abberation.  It is not the norm.
                                      Either that or your insurance carrier
                                      just sucks. -dans
                                      \_ I am not saying it is the norm,
                                         but it is common if you have big
                                         medical bills. Have you ever had
                                         big medical bills, especially
                                         from an emergency (where approvals
                                         and such were not done beforehand
                                         and you go to the hospital the
                                         ambulance takes you to)? If not,
                                         you are the one who is wrong. If
                                         so, do tell. I have personal
                                         experience with this and when my
                                         old employer changed medical
                                         plans (to one that sucked) we had
                                         an open forum where I heard
                                         stories you've probably never
                                         dreamed of. One guy was paying $800
                                         per month out of pocket for his own
                                         diabetes treatment *with insurance*
                                         because it was "pre-existing" and
                                         that coverage took a year to kick in.
                                         I think you only know from
                                         healthy 20something s/w engineer
                                         who uses Kaiser HMO to have
                                         bloodwork done.
                                         \_ Oh dear oh dear are you ever
                                            wrong.  I have two navels.  I was
                                            born with one.  I have a pre-ex.
                                            I know how to read an insurance
                                            contract.  What you're describing
                                            is neither normal, nor common.
                                            Please go read some actual
                                            statistics.  Incidentally, you do
                                            realize that pre-ex causes reduce
                                            realize that pre-ex clauses reduce
                                            what you pay as a private
                                            individual for health care? -dans
        \_ It's definitely not being eaten by doctors.  Doctors' costs of
           business, particularly malpractice insurance, is growing much
           faster than their salaries.  I have a friend who just graduated
           from med school and she tells me that her net income from
           practicing medicine will likely never exceed what I make writing
           code for a startup.  To put it mildly, this is fucked. -dans
           \_ She probably will make more, even accounting for the costs
              of medical school, but she won't pull ahead until very late
              in her career. The nice thing about being a doctor is that
              at 70 you can still see a few patients and make $80K/year
              while I doubt you will be coding at that age. However, your
              comment about insurance is correct. Lawyers pay about
              $13K/year for malpractice insurance, but OB/GYN pay about
              $100K/year. Critics would point out that doctors in the US still
              make more than doctors anywhere else in the world, though,
              even accounting for these expenses. BTW, why do you think
              it's "fucked" that you make more than a doctor? You are both
              professionals providing services society wants. I think it's
              fucked that doctors make 3-4x what nurses make. It's not
              like your friend is going to have a bad life or anything.
        \_ Free market efficiency!
           If we had socialized medicine, we'd be paying 10x for lower quality!
        \_ So what it seems like to me, is that insurance policies need
           to severely limit the upper end of heroic medical measures
           they'll cover, and who they'll cover them for.  No heart
           transplants for 55-year-old males with liver disease.  But yes
           to emergency care for a 20-year-old in a car wreck, provided
           that care won't produce a $100k/yr vegetable to care for?
           No, to lifelong $1M/year drug regimens, but yes, to insulin?
           \_ And who are *you* to decide who lives and dies?
                \_ Is this a serious question?  To answer anyway:
                   I'm one of the decreasing number of people who pays
                   insurance and so covers the cost of heroic medicine.
                   Seems like I should have some say into how that
                   money is applied?
                   \_ No.  Really, the idea that you are some how propping up
                      the system with your payments is an illusion. -dans
                      \_ Whose payments are propping it up if not yours,
                         mine, and his?
                         \_ Magic government money.
              \_ It should be decided by capacity to pay. If that's not
                 "fair" then what is fair? Is it worth $100B to keep the
                 Pope/President/your uncle alive? $300B? $3T? At what point do
                 you say "Just let the guy die?". It's unpleasant to think
                 about, but it really comes down to dollars and cents and a
                 life does have a value placed on it.
                 \_ Agreed that it sould be decided by capacity to pay.  That's
                    not the same as insurance companies "severely" limiting it.
        \_ I would say the the standard of care has skyrocketed. All those devices,
           drugs, trained people, complex procedures, throw-away sterile materials,
           operating rooms, MRIs, fiber-optic cameras.  And most of it is just
           accepted as "the norm".  It goes way beyond just keeping people alive
           and comparing total money spent vs. life expectancy. We pamper ourselves,
           and it's in the health care industry's interest to do so.
           Washing your hands and taking an aspirin would probably get the job done,
           but you "have a right to the best healthcare available."
           It's a vicious cycle of madness, and we're all part of it.
        \_ Would any of you all believe that I didn't post my question
           as a troll?  I really wanted to know.  Unfortunately, I don't
           think the motd provided real clarity.  Perhaps I was a fool
           to ask.  The study I Googled (and commented on above) made
           the claim that most of the increase has gone into doctor's
           salaries.  To dans:  I don't believe the economic wherewhithal
           exists on the planet to provide everyone with heroic Western
           style medical care.  I doubt that the economic wherewithal
           \_ Western style medical care really isn't that heroic.  'First do
              no harm' is an ideological core value of Western medical
              education, and this means doctors are trained to be skeptical
              of heroic procedures with low odds of successful outcome /
              medical heroics in general. -dans
           exists to provide even basic medical care to everyone.  It
           seems insane to define "what cannot be provided" as a right.
           And what about the right to keep the fruits of your labor?
           That's in **direct** competition with any universal
           entitlement to any product or service.  We should keep
           "rights" restricted to equal
           opportunities (freedom) rather than entitlements.  As an
           extreme, if someone has a "right" to medical care, then
           someone else--whether he wants to or not, must provide
           that care.  Doctors as slaves?  --PeterM
           \_ To simply put, cost rise is associated with the rise of
              new medicines and new treatments, and American's attitude
              of "I deserve the best treatment." Many years ago we didn't
              have advanced MRI and other expensive drugs which we all
              are now paying for.
              \_ Please provide evidence to support your questionable
                 claims.  When you say 'we are paying for', do you mean
                 'we are paying for through insurance coverage' or 'we
                 are paying for out of pocket'? -dans
                 \_ You were very free to call people "stupid" or "assholes"
                    above for not agreeing that people have a right to
                    medical care.  Now, this guy said that we are paying
                    for medical care.  He's right.  There's no free lunch.
                    Insurance premiums come out of our pocket.  What
                    distinction are you trying to make to invalidate his
                    claim that "we are paying for"?
           \_ Any study that concludes that the money went to the doctors
              is pushing an agenda, because there's no way that's true.
              My neighbor is a partner at a busy neurology practice and he
              would argue all day long about how to make money now you
              have to see a lot of patients (not provide a good standard
              of care), get a good survey rating (translates into
              dropping patients with chronic health problems because they
              complain all the time), avoid research (who has time to
              participate in studies), and probably still make less than
              his dad (who was a doctor) did. His dad lived in a mansion
              in Larchmont and he lives next to me in a 1300 square foot
              house. His dad drove a Jaguar. He drives a Passat. His dad
              built a greenhouse for his mom's orchids. He waters the lawn
              by hand because it's not in the budget to redo the aging
              sprinklers. I don't want to say that I am basing my
              statement on purely anecdotal evidence, but the reality is
              that malpractice insurance and HMOs have eroded the medical
              profession. To claim that doctors now make 3x more than
              before (costs have risen 3X according to your premise) is
              ridiculous. They make less than before just like many of us.
              Let's see this study you found. Are you sure it didn't look
              at gross pay for doctors and ignored that they pay 25% of
              revenues for malpractice insurance and that they have to hire
              2 people fulltime just to figure out the insurance paperwork?
              \_ Doctors made out pretty well in this country *until* the
                 HMOs and high malpractice insurance came along.  I think
                 that says it all.
                 \_ Yes. Now we pay 3x as much for care and it doesn't
                    even go to the doctor or nurses but instead to lawyers
                    and insurance companies. This is much better!
2007/9/25 [Recreation/Dating] UID:48183 Activity:nil
9/25    My whole family is huge. My mom and sister, have enormously huge
        boobs. My sister, I feel so bad for her, but she is also extremely
        overweight. There is no bra that can be made to support her breasts.
        They are that bad. I'm the smallest in my family, but still I have
        been dealing with breasts like these. They aren't up to where they
        need to be, they point down with the nipples.. and if I move quickly,
        they can smack each other lol.
2007/9/25 [Health/Men] UID:48184 Activity:nil 54%like:48180
9/25    Is There Anything Good About Men?
        A Psycho-Evolutionary view.
2007/9/25-27 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48185 Activity:high
        Cholera outbreak in Iraq spreading. Maybe we don't need to fight
        Al Qaeda anymore. MANIFEST DESTINY!
        \_ We're going back in time!
        \_ Ok, I'm bored, I'll bite.  What, if anything, does manifest
           destiny have to do with cholera in Iraq?  I'm figuring pretty
           much nothing but you thought it sounded good.
           \_ I think the OP is making a joke comparing the US's current
              imperialist pursuits in iraq to its previous imperialist
              pursuits in north america ... manifest destiny was
              achieved partially because native americans died out
              (small pox, etc) ... so if the iraqi population things out
              due to disease our job their will be easier. har har
              \_ Hmm, ok, except what we're doing in Iraq is not imperialism.
                 \_ yes I understand that, you understand that, but the
                    average Muslim in the middle east does NOT understand
                    that. Many are pissed at what they perceive as
                    a hostile occupation, fueling hatred and their
                    reasonings for attacking us. Just because you have
                    a full understanding of the situation from YOUR
                    perspective, does not make your opinion valid.
                    Fucking dumb shit.
                    \_ Nothing you just said has anything at all to do with
                       cholera, manifest destiny, or anything else on this
                       thread.  And you call me a dumbshit?  Ok.  Whatever.
                       \_ Idiot.
                       \_ Idiot.                                -troller
                          \_ Your truly brilliant reply has made your case in
                             a way that allows no further response.  There is
                             just nothing to be said to your laser sharp wit
                             and clear command of the language and issues at
                             hand.  I salute your intellectual mastery!
                             \_ Congrats, you've been trolled. BRILLIANT!
                                \_ Uhm, duh, it's the motd.   Everyone is
                                   a troll.  And if you're smart enough to
                                   read this, you're smart enough to see I
                                   replied in the first place due to boredom
                                   and willingness to bite.  How did a mouth
                                   breather like you manage to login?
                                   \_ Dude, you're fucking smart. Keep it up.
                                      \_ Surprised Trollee hasn't
                                         written back  !troller !op
                 If it was then we're the *worst* imperialists in all of
                 \_ Muslims think we ARE the worst imperialists in the world.
                 recorded history.  Real imperialists would have simply
                 flattened the place, turned it into a giant military base,
                 enacted permanent martial law, had a 100% American military
                 governing body, etc.  But ok, I guess it makes optroll happy
                 to make shit up or something.
                 \_ Let me guess, you don't "get" The Onion's humor
                    either, do you?
                    \_ I "get" the onion.  I "get" the onion so much that I
                       can tell this is nothing like the onion.  You know
                       why this is different?  Because the onion is *funny*.
                  \_ No that is not what a "real imperialist" would have
                     done at all. Read up on the history of the British
                     Empire in Iraq. We actually have tried to more or less
                     convert Iraq into a US economic colony and failed. Our
                     methods are not that different from what England tried
                     100 years ago. Those that do not learn from history...
                     \_ We are not converting Iraq. We simply wanted a
                        regime change.
2007/9/25-27 [Health/Disease/General, Health/Women] UID:48186 Activity:high
9/24    Love flying? Better take a blood thinning medication. Your risk
        of a blood clot on a flight is a whopping 1 in 4656.
        \_ We're going back in time!
        \_ Here's the original paper:
           They specifically do not recommend taking blood-thinners
           prophylactically.  Also, your risk of getting a blood clot
           is about 1 in 1000 per year even if you never fly.  They
           estimate that flying a lot increases your yearly risk by 3x.
           \_ They say that anticoagulant use is not justified in the
              general case, but may benefit some.
        \_ This ties in well with the question about drinking. Drink a lot
           of booze before the flight and you will not be nervous and you
           will reduce your chances of dying, too.
           \_ Apparently, alcohol actually increases risks of blood clots.
                -- ilyas
              \_ How can that be? Doesn't, for example, red wine thin the
        \_ Love being crammed into a tiny, loud space at 30,000 ft? Better
           get your head examined!
           \_ Some people have no choice.
              \_ How could you possibly have "no choice"? Did you get
                 handcuffed and forced on a plane?
2007/9/25-27 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany] UID:48187 Activity:nil
9/25    healthcare insurance thread: 12 pages and going!  rock on peterm!
        \_ You can call me a troll, but you can't call me an anonymous
           troll!  (Not for that one anyway.)  --PeterM
           \_ :-)  I truly admire your efforts.  Well past 12 pages and
              no one has even mentioned Hitler or the Nazis yet.  This
              is a great one.  --your #1 Fan
2007/9/25-27 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan] UID:48188 Activity:high
9/25    As you get older, the more racist you become because you have
        less inhibition, study shows:
        \_ Uhm... yeah.  Sure.  Whatever.
        \_ Do old people still say Negros or is that a thing of the past?
        \_ My grandpa still says Japs. So what?
           \_ So does my dad, all them jewish princesses --Jon
           \_ They are Japs. How is that offensive? It's like them calling
              us Yankees.
              \_ RACIST!
              \_ Are you Japanese or Japanese-American?
                 \_ No, but are you going to tell me that calling Japanese
                    people Japanese (Japs for short) is racist? Should
                    the British be offended if we call them Brits?
                    \_ The word Jap has a distinct perjorative history, so
                       yes, calling Japanese people Japs is offensive. Calling
                       them Japanese is not. If you cannot spot the difference,
                       you may be to short for this ride. --erikred
                       \_ There's no difference and if Japs are offended
                          by being called Japs then they need thicker
                          skins. It's not the same as "chink" or "gook".
                          "Japs" are what they are!
                          \_ Either you're a bad troll, or you don't realize
                             that you're an idiot.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:September:25 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>