birdog1960

this piece ties in nicely to this discussion and the thread on the political power of exxon. to paraphrase: fracking is the most important environmental and regulatory issue they face.

the word "emotional" could easily be replaced by "humanist". not that extreme right wingers aren't humanistic. they are, as long as the humans in question are just like them.

geez, you're right..and it was 12 not 7 but what's 5 earthquakes and why would he want to actually read an article against his, set in stone, views? sh!tting where you eat must be standard procedure for some folks. or maybe it's ok if it's a restaurant a few miles away.

it has everything to do with the trust you should have in the energy co's to protect you and your progeny. it's not enough that there were 7 earthquakes precipitated by fracking? you have to know how big to decide it's not good? ok, for your black and white brain: it's bad.

just watched "the bothersome man". really enjoyed it...thought provoking. thanks! now enjoying episode 2 of "rescue me". thinking we're not gonna make it out tonight. leaning heavy on the end of the week.

is that so unbelievable? with the gulf spill, yellowstone pipeline spill, valdez, chernobyl, fukushima? and now 7 earthquakes in ohio (sounds like a good song title- played to the csny song "ohio"). which i'm sure they anticipated...right? and you have faith in the energy co's doing the right thing? let's deregulate and let em do whatever they think best...yeah, that's the answer! we'll ajj be rich! and have a better life!

it's promising technology, no doubt. but might we get a better understanding of the risks involved before we barge in like wolves after a rabbit? you'd think we'd have learned our lesson by now. more science, less knee jerk.

yeah, they're pretty rare in ohio too.

here's the condensed version of my criticism so maybe yall can concentrate on attacking the meat of it: almost overnight, the oil companies build and operate huge production facilities. they make grossly inadequate provisions for necessities such as workers housing. this impacts the indigenous population negatively through unsightly, undesirable trailer work camps cropping up all over, potential health and environmental risks (with inadequate impact studies) , potential earthquakes, increased cost of living and straining of available infrastructure. the workers aren't being forced at gun point to sleep in trailers with 3 or 4 other guys for rent that might afford them a nice shared beach front condo on the outer banks but are they being informed before hand? there pay is severely reduced by this added expense and they're living in one of the harshest winter climates in north america. if they're aware (of the potential health risks also), then fine. but what choice does a homeowner overlooking a man camp have? i argue that the oil co's have a responsibility for due diligence on several issues that they have apparently ignored. it seems yall believe that's entirely mitigated by a 3% unemployment rate and increased tax revenues. i say it isn't, especially in regards to health and environmental threats to those long term inhabitants who profit little from the oil co's presence. yes. and they've seen this play out before. that's one of the reasons cited for moratoriums on work camps in several towns.

well yes, i built my own house and my own business. but i'd have never built either in a place with no housing available.

then they're acting irresponsibly unless they have suddenly developed adequate housing and infrastructure or are warning recruits about the problems. what's they're incentive to recruit for the oil companies? tax revenues?

didn't criticize the state...don't find gouging particularly appealing but it's the american way, right? the energy companies are the ones who i see as responsible for ensuring the availability of decent housing for their workers before delving into large scale operations and recruiting more workers at job fairs. i don't blame the towns for not wanting to fund infrastructure for potentially a short term boom...it's happened before. don't blame them for not wanting man camps. i wouldn't want them in my neighborhood either. really, i find the question of wastewater from fracking much more interesting. that and the potential for earthquakes..

is it unreasonable to wait until safe working and living conditions are present before proceeding with large scale production? nevermind, already know your answer and it's incorrect. ya think the locals might want to know what they're being exposed to as far as carcinogens or toxins in waste water from the mines. my understanding is that it's poorly studied and if the industry knows, they're not telling.

heard an interview with a local mayor. several areas have put moratoriums on "man camps". rent for a single room in a house is up to $2k/month and many workers are living in poorly insulated trailers in n dakota where temps reach neg double digits in the winter. not even mentioning the environmental and health concerns to the l0ocal population. but yeah, i can see why you'd consider it a great economic success. unfettered greed working it's magic again. i'll resist calling you a schoolyard name.

can't provide a link from work but google "man camps north dakota". plenty of stories and plenty of controversy.

they may be looking for workers because workers are living out of trailers in camps. many of the locals don't want the drunken, malodorous workers in camps in their towns and the rest gouge them with inflated rents, 3-4x normal.

relax. it's a campaign tactic. i find it greatly preferable to swift boating and much more benign.

i'm sure the 1000's of gm workers that vote fully agree with you. i didn't say it was surprising, i inferred it wouldn't play well. note the distinction.

fixed

maybe. note the new dem campaign showing how wonderful bain was to middle class workers whose companies they killed while getting rich and "improving" the economy. when asked about it, a romney staffer wouldn't comment other than to state "our intention is to make this a referendum on obama's presidency". we'll see how it plays...

yup. as we continually remind our debate opponents, everything is relative. when i lived in ann arbor, i was decidedly centrist compared to my peers. not here. and regarding the age issue. i'm a 50 something white guy with quite traditional social values, lifestyle and upbringing. but being politically liberal, i'm labelled an "aging hippy" based solely on my age while most that know me in person, if forced for a social label, would likely never describe me that way. ..just way too much stereotyping going on. it's preconceptions and misconceptions like this that lessen the debate. and then there's the personal insults and ad hominem attacks: the tactic of choice for many here on the right. much less frequently used by the left. adds nothing to the discussion and is often done in desperation. i propose we start keeping score since i play this as a game. -1 for every personal insult since it reveals weakness. so why keep engaging? cuz my real life doesn't allow for this type of spirited, sometimes brutal discourse (one closely guards the designation of "gentleman" in the south) and i enjoy it. the forum provides my outlet for it. nice to see some like minded folks joining the battle but we"re still greatly outnumbered...underdogs, but that's the way we like it, right? we're Bills fans.

agree completely. inpatient surgeries are down significantly in our regional system and this is being attributed to the factors you mentioned. this really hurts the hospitals cuz that's where the big profit margins are. but it's also where the big costs are. and for those same reasons more and more people are looking at nonsurgical options, adding to primary care demand. factor in the need for close follow up for complicated chronic conditions to avoid uncompensated hospital readmissions and you won't find many slow primary care offices. will supply and demand changes realign reimbursement? maybe but i'm not holding my breath that that will involve huge increases for primary care but rather decreases for specialties. either way, the result will be more incentive for future docs to choose primary care.

sure, anyone looking at health care reform has put the best interests and priorities of anesthesiologists at the very top of the list and your assertion that it's either general or nothing is the stuff of a groundbreaking position paper. What are you waiting for? finally, the numbers once again don't support your contentions (interesting that you never seem to cite any). look at numbers for doctors per 1000 and nurses in countries with universal care like japan, netherlands, uk. you'll see more docs and nurses both, in proportion to the us population, all the while at lower cost and equal or better outcomes.

the only thing salient about your colonoscopy story is that in places with single payor there's generaly no need for an anesthesiologist at a colonoscopy. actually, it's not been the norm anywhere that i've worked or trained. i used to do my own sigs and know internists in rural areas that do their own colonoscopies with conscious sedation. complications from sedation or from any cause in this procedure are rare. why would you want to add the considerable cost of anesthesia to this procedure? oh right, this is for profit medicine. charge what the market can bear... 30 million more covered lives...and you come to the conclusion that primary care doctors would become dinosaurs? might it be that you're concerned that nurse anesthetists could do even more of the considerable work they already do in your job at lower cost? now that makes some sense. yeah, well, this is pretty typical...some of the far right loons argue that obama didn't produce what he promised (which in this case would have been single payor) while others simultaneously argue that what he did was a brilliant, stealth, trojan horse move. either way, he's hated by the right.

got any other unfounded theories you want to advance? i don't think anyone looking at these numbers would describe them as "dwindling". and do you see a precedent in single payor countries for the destruction of primary care? While not seeing a marked earnings increase, i see a stronger presence and reliance on primary care physicians with less costly care and generally better outcomes. and dc, i didn't blame republicans in congress for the compromise on health care. while they certainly didn't help, there were several conservative dems that killed any chance for single payor, the plan that i and the 18000 physicians and med students in the organization i cited support. and yes, i believe that if obama had seen any realistic path to get there, he would have championed it as well. we saw how well trying to push for too rapid change in health care worked for clinton.