HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » BainsBane » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 42,258

Journal Archives

On this day the heavens opened up, Satan ascended to the earth

and the Hillary haters cried, Elizabeth, why hast thou forsaken us?

Stand the President in the corner

and make him write men 500 times on the blackboard. Feel better now?

I pay health insurance for lots of conditions I don't have

I pay for coverage for heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes--none of which I myself have. I pay for coverage for spinal cord injuries, bronchitis, kidney failure, and lung diseases. I pay for coverage for leukemia, breast cancer, testicular cancer, throat cancer, bone cancer, as well as lots and lots of diseases that I have been fortunate never to develop in my lifetime. I also pay for maternity coverage that I myself will never take advantage of. Why? Because that is what medical insurance is: it pools together funds across a population and spreads the risk. We never know what coverage we will eventually need, but we do know at some point in our lives we will need medical care of some type.

Why all this angst over paying for childbirth? Set aside the fact that we are liberals here who are supposed to have some concern for the broader society, as human beings we all have an interest in the propagation of the species. So what if your gender means you won't use certain types of medical services? There are a lot of medical services that, if you are fortunate, you will never need. No one uses every type of medical coverage. So what's with the belly aching about insurance companies having to cover birth control and child birth? Are the profits of the insurance companies really more important than your fellow citizens? And for those whose income is low enough to need government subsidies, why do liberals suddenly turn on each other because being female is no longer a pre-existing condition? Folks

three pages didn't make a lot of difference

despite the wider variety of topics.

Yep, I'm one note, or 1.25 note

You can't do a journal feed but you can paste the text. This is the first page of mine. I'm one and a quarter note.

Men's room

I just noticed my name appears. Sigh. Quite the contrast with HOF.

Here is HOF

and don't you dare say the gun control reform activism group is the gungeon.

American Journal of Medicine: Higher gun ownership equals higher gun violence

Transcript and video here: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10810&updaterx=2013-10-06+12%3A02%3A00

DESVARIEUX: According to a recent study by the American Journal of Medicine, countries with the highest share of gun ownership actually have the highest firearms-related deaths.
Here to discuss the significance of this study is Ladd Everitt. He is the director of communications of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Thanks for being with us, Ladd. . .
Can you summarize the findings from The American Journal of Medicine about the relationship between firearm ownership and firearms-related deaths?

EVERITT: Yeah, well, they looked at a number of different states. It was a very far-reaching study, particularly for study this type, and they did find positive correlations in terms of the, you know, level of gun ownerships, less gun ownership in the home and communities, and then in terms of levels of gun homicide and also gun suicide. And that confirmed previous studies that we've seen in this area that showed similar findings.

DESVARIEUX: How does gun violence in the U.S. compare what other countries?

EVERITT: It's astronomically higher, particularly when you compare it to other developed countries and other high-income nations. You know, the pattern typically is the U.S. has a higher overall homicide rate, and then when you look specifically at the gun death rate, our gun death rate is typically astronomically higher than other democracies' and high-income nations'.

Coverage of the same study in the Guardian

High gun ownership makes countries less safe, US study finds
Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.

Their findings, published Wednesday in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine, debunk the historic belief among many people in the United States that guns make a country safer, they say. On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least.

The journal has fast-tracked publication of the study because of the shootings at the Washington navy yard. It was originally scheduled for later this week.

It follows an emotional appeal from a doctor at the trauma center in Washington where the victims of Aaron Alexis' random violence were taken. "I would like you to put my trauma center out of business," Janis Orlowski, chief medical officer at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, told reporters in the aftermath of the massacre. "I would like to not be an expert on gunshots. Let's get rid of this. This is not America."


Link to study: http://www.amjmed.com/article/PIIS0002934313004440/fulltext
Go to Page: 1