Journal pudge's Journal: A (Traumatic) Sphincter Says What? 13
In an emergency, timing is critical, but there are no national standards for trauma care. Can anything be done about it?
-- NBC Nightly News promo
Why would we want or need a national standard for such things? Are we incapable of having our own perfectly good local standards? If we are, then by what logic would we think national standards would be any better?
OK, fine, some places don't have good enough care. Why is the solution national standards, instead of local citizens saying "let's fix this ourselves?"
As Fred Thompson said recently:
Before anything else, folks in Washington ought to be asking first and foremost, "Should government be doing this? And if so, then at what level of government?"
Not good enough (Score:2)
I don't want to settle for second best. For me, only a global standard will do.
Re: (Score:2)
waynes world party time excellent (Score:2)
Where I live it depends on the trauma (Score:2)
The entire Pacific NW will have all the burn units choked to overflowing, with hospital beds in every spare corridor and room (even mine a mile off the UW campus).
Or
So, what is a prudent measure?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, conversely, why should we in the more-efficient more-productive more-educated more-helping Blue States have to pick up their slack?
Sometimes, there is not only one answer, or even a clear single answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm. But shouldn't we care if America-hating people in the Red States won't care for themselves and then all die in massive forest fires and floods?
I know of no America-hating people in this country. Individuals, not people. So I have no idea what you are referring to there.
That said, so fine, you care about other people: what has that got to do with national control over trauma standards? Are you saying you know what is better for themselves than they do?
But, conversely, why should we in the more-efficient more-productive more-educated more-helping Blue States have to pick up their slack?
This is about standards, not paying. Paying is another topic, while, though related, is different from regulation. I am not asking "why should some states pay for other states?," I am asking "w
Re: (Score:2)
You just proved my point.
Basically, you gave a motive for certain states - which for arguments sake (and historical accuracy reasons) I shall refer to as Red States - to undercut their infrastructure and disaster preparation. They wait until i
Re: (Score:2)
This is about standards, not paying. Paying is another topic, while, though related, is different from regulation. I am not asking "why should some states pay for other states?," I am asking "why should some states tell other states how to manage their own resources?"
You just proved my point.
Not unless you were in agreement with mine, no, I did not. :-)
Basically, you gave a motive for certain states - which for arguments sake (and historical accuracy reasons) I shall refer to as Red States - to undercut their infrastructure and disaster preparation.
No, I absolutely did not.
They wait until it's a catastrophe - think Florida - and then get the other states (aka USA) to bail them out.
Perhaps they do that: but MY point is that we shouldn't be bailing them out with the federal government at all.
For that matter, why are we as a nation subsidizing replacement value cost insurance for beachfront property or property (residential) built on flood plains.
We shouldn't. We should not bail out Florida, we should not bail out New Orleans, we should not bail out beachfront property in Mississippi. We (as a nation) should not bail out Seattle if its infrastucture fails.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention a previously existing city that predates most of the USA.
Florida, on the other hand, was only recently built up.
Re: (Score:2)
New Orleans was a federal disaster from the get go.
It shouldn't have been. It only was for the same reason any old flood is a federal disaster: because federal law says so.
Not to mention a previously existing city that predates most of the USA.
Florida, on the other hand, was only recently built up.
That is, of course, not remotely relevant to the discussion. I can't figure out why you think the age of the area matters, but I do know you're wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Florida is a case in point. Summer homes on beachfront property keep getting rebuilt and get disaster insurance from federally-subsidized (e.g. paid for by blue states) insurance.
New Orleans is a case in point - just look at where we released the less than 10 percent of money set aside - mostly a
Re: (Score:2)
I was noting that we tend to subsidize disaster recovery for rich areas
Sure. But since I am against all such subsidies, that argument has no impact on me.
We don't complain too much about this, amusingly, it's the Reds that do. Irony.
That has nothing to do with anything I wrote.
Again, please stick to the topic at hand, and don't use my journal as a means just to launch attacks at people you don't like that have nothing to do with me and what I post here.