Apparently there’s a movie in theaters now by the name of The Hunger Games – it’s sort of obscure, so you may not have heard of it. Despite the title, it does not have anything to do with food. No, apparently it has something to do with young people fighting to the death on TV, or something.
Over on the Fox News website, Dr. Keith Ablow – described as “a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team” – is shocked to discover that this film contains:
1) Attractive young people
2) Violence
This deadly combination alarms Dr. Ablow, who warns:
The Hunger Games … adds to the toxic psychological forces it identifies, rather than reducing them. …
It is an entertainment product of complete fiction and great potency, given its intense level of fantasy and violence. As such, it only conveys young people closer to “expressing” in a virtual format their powerful and primitive instincts (potentially kindling their desire to truly express such instincts) while conveying them further from their daily realities and a little further still from their real selves.
And apparently the film fails utterly in inculcating hostility towards the Kardashian family.
Almost no one will emerge from a theater swearing off shows like the Keeping Up With the Kardashians, or Jersey Shore because they are produced by adults happy enough to make a buck off of stupefying teenagers.
As I am sure you are all aware, inculcating hostility towards the Kardashians is the aim of all great art, as Aristotle explained so many centuries ago:
A tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious, and also, as having magnitude, complete in … with incidents arousing pity and terror, with which to accomplish its purgation of these emotions. Those Kardashian girls are such stuck up bitches — “ooh i got a big ass, everybody look at me!” And don’t even get me started on Snooki.
Hey, can I get a goddamn gyro here?
That quote is, of course, from Aristotle’s famous treatise “Ho-etics.”
In addition to not inculcating hatred towards the Kardashians, Dr. Ablow warns us, The Hunger Games will make its viewers
more likely to come out of theaters having shed some measure of the healthy psychological defenses (which are, luckily, partly reinforced by socialization) that keep them at a distance from their violent impulses. …
Other than entertaining millions and millions of teenagers and making millions and millions of dollars, the net result of The Hunger Games is likely to be:
1) Females will be further distanced from their traditional feminine characteristics that … suggested they were not being real “girls” if they were extremely physically violent.
2) Young teens and many pre-teens will be awakened to the fact that they are capable of extreme violence, given the right set of circumstances.
3) A few psychologically vulnerable teens—who would have come to no good anyhow—may be inspired to replicate the film’s violence.
So I’m guessing that’s a big “thumbs down” from Dr. Ablow.
Given that the mainstream media is but a tool in the hand of our gynocentric matriarchal overlordsladies, I’m not quite sure how this article slipped through. But we’re lucky it did.
Over on What Men Are Saying About Women, where I found big chunks of Ablow’s essay quoted without any explanation of where they were from, our good friend Christian J. explains that:
This movie is straight out of the slut-feminists’ arsenal of the “You Go Grrrllll” mantras. They have promoted violent women and will continue to do so (think Valerie Solanas). Slut-feminists justify this action under their delusional and blatantly false claim that women should be able to protect themselves as they are constantly attacked and physically abused on a daily basis, everywhere they go..
Where they get that from is ofcourse by generating their own falsified and doctored statistics which they have done for too long to remember.
If anyone suggests you go see The Hunger Games, they are probably a slut feminist. You should run far away from them in case they decide to punch you.
Go watch old episodes of The A-Team instead, a show which is totally not violent in any way.
I’m reading the horror stories and part of me is thinking “please tell me you’re exaggerating…”
How can anyone think this is a good system?
Hey, I didn’t even bring up someone who was once my friend. Had to flee home due to parental abuse, broke as anything, with a learning disability, and desperately needing therapy…
Had to work their ass off in fast food and STILL couldn’t afford the therapy. Which they needed to function at work so they could make the money to afford the therapy…
As you might imagine, that person was in very, very bad shape for a long time. They couldn’t afford SHOES, never mind HEALTHCARE. Bootstrapping’s really fucking hard when your parents denied you education, abused you, and you had to run with nothing.
Good ol’ USA. But you know, it would’ve been so EXPENSIVE getting that person basic therapy and shoes!
Krugman once stated that a foot amputation cost (at the time he said it) $40,000 a pop. He also pointed out that a course of preventative care treatment cost $200 a month.
Now I am not that great at math but I do have this handy calculator: that is 200 months. Which comes out to 16 and a half years.
How is that not cheaper?!
RE: Princessbonbon
I work in diabetic footcare. We make shoes and inserts to protect the feet and prevent amputations.
A pair of shoes and a year’s supply of those inserts on average runs about… $377 in Medicare payment. More if the person needs shoe modifications, toe fillers, or custom-molded shoes (for the people who can’t fit into normal shoes due to deformities or massive edema).
For comparison: that’s a little more than half of what I pay for my bus passes in a year.
If you break your leg, go to the ER. They can’t refuse you because of your inability to pay. If you’re poor and need medical care, apply for Medicaid. If you’re living out of your car, there are many charities willing to help.
Medicaid and Medicare are adding to the national debt, so what do you think Obamacare will do? Yep, we can’t afford it either.
Ruby, you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about and have never been homeless or below the poverty line. Hopefully this continues for you.
One thing that I think hasn’t been pointed out yet is that if people are healthy, they work more efficiently, which is good for the economy overall. If people are going to work sick because they can’t afford to go to the hospital, they won’t be as productive, and if it’s something contagious, they can spread it to the whole workforce, causing even greater losses.
Good healthcare is the right thing to do economically, no matter which way you look at it.
Ruby, just STFU. You clearly have no idea what you’re spewing.
Did you know that uninsured people have to pay MORE than insured people? And that if the hospital deems your care a non-emergency they demand you pay upfront or throw you out.
Did you also know that Medicaid eligibility is a crap shoot? Depending on the state, you can qualify if you have 100% of the poverty level, or 150% or in the case of Arizona less than 100% of poverty level.
They are ALL willing to help. But the question is can they? LA had a week long free medical clinic that had a wait line with a thousand people in it. This even included people with insurance.
no they are not.
Save the US money.
Actually we cannot afford not to do something more. ACA was a first step-not a last step by any means.
You have no idea what you are talking about. None. Either start reading what I and others have linked to or shut up.
@ Pillowinhell — so sorry for being so late in replying, but of course you can use delta-bravo any time you like.
Also, how did this thread devolve into a discussion on the so-called “Obamacare”? I wanna keep talking about how awesome Katniss (and now, Jennifer Lawrence) is!!
I have a long post in moderation but I echo the same thing as others-shut up Ruby, you have no idea what you are posting about.
Antz brought it up and Ruby decided to weigh in with zie’s lack of knowledge about the current problems facing the US over health care access.
I think Ruby has been sucked into the very popular myth that there’s some sort of underground economy that allows people near the poverty line to support themselves adequately. And government programs want folks to belive it. The problem is that the gaps in the systems are wide enough to drive an eighteen wheeler through sideways. That and ruby does not understand how much more time things like grocery shopping takes when you’re on foot, lugging groceries and you have to shop at four different places so you can afford what you need. The working poor are an invisible class in society, largely due to work uniforms. Lose the uniforms and the clothes would tell you just how bad it is.
On top of that, Ruby also thinks that the US has some kind of lack of ability to pay for things.
We have a ten trillion dollar economy-we can afford it.
Why are people still talking to Ruby? Zie has still not said a single thing that wasn’t parroted straight from Fox News, nor has zie replied to anything specific that anyone else has said. I love you guys, but hellkell is the only one with the right idea here.
(I do suspect the US would probably be better at innovation, and everything else, if less of its population were trapped in desperate poverty and/or incapacitated by easily preventable health conditions, no?)
I’m actually lucky – MrB did enough respite work last month that we should be able to pay for my meds this month. And maybe contribute to the gas tank! AND he just got on the multi-district sub list for parapros – he might not work all the time, but any work is better than none.
Boy oh boy. Yes, they can’t refuse you. What they CAN do, however, is miss the fracture, tell you you have a sprain and send you home. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve seen this. It’s like x-ray equipment miraculously recalibrates itself to not see shit on a person who is poor. Based on my experience in the industry, a patient’s level of wealth is a very strong predictor of his or her likelihood of becoming a victim of a diagnostic “error” — within a single institution.
Couple that with conservative efforts to enable hospitals to turn people away unless they can pay upfront, regardless of the emergency, and to enact tort reform that will bar recovery by non-paying patients — and your suggestion that simply showing up and not paying the bill is a viable, long-term solution to the inability of so many people to afford basic medical care is glib to say the least.
Besides — if your broken leg gets treated in the ER and you don’t pay, it’s not like the cost of your care evaporates. Someone will have to pay for it. Who shall it be? The doctors? The staff? Other patients? Should healthcare in poor neighborhoods be automatically more expensive for those who DO pay because so many can’t? You conservatives keep talking about how unfair it is to “force someone else” to pay for a poor person’s health care, then you turn around and offer an alternative: force someone else to pay for a poor person’s health care. I guess, as long as it’s done haphazardly, with a disproportionate burden on the poor and the working class, and those who bear the costs aren’t identified by name, it’s okay with your lot.
So, you are against Medicaid … and you are suggesting to the poor is that they get Medicaid? Which you want to repeal, anyway? What kind of sense does THAT make?
No new boobery going on today? I suppose that’s good news.
Trigger warning for description of injury + poverty.
Ruby- actual personal experience here in being uninsured with a broken lower extremity, some years back.
Spiral fracture of the right ankle. Yes, just what it sounds like and yes it hurt like holy hell and yes I went to the ER. Transported by personal vehicle because the thought of the bill for an ambulance made me cry so hard I nearly threw up.
Yes they saw me without my being insured. Yes they made me fill the time I waited for an XRay filling out a ream of forms which all boiled down to ‘we are going to bill the shit out of you’.
Yes, they Xrayed my ankle and established it was profoundly broken and required medical care. Then they put a temporary half-cast on me and told me no weight-bearing or I could permanently damage myself.
Then they gave me a scrip for three says worth of pain meds (which I paid for at the drugstore out of my own pocket) and another slip of paper with an appointment for a followup with a doctor in a private practice in three days. This appointment, of course, was not to be considered an emergency and I was expected to pay for it upfront since I was uninsured.
At that appointment (which cost over $200) I was given an examination and options for my further treatment. The least costly and least effective of the options would still cost another $200+ and take the longest to heal. The option the doctor told me was the better choice from a medical viewpoint was $500. Either way I would be required to pay, cash or check, before leaving the office that day.
He then politely left the room so I could take a moment to decide. The person who had driven me to the appointment- a friend who had good insurance, btw- stared at me when I said the only thing I had to decide was whether to write the check for the cheaper option and bounce the rent check or just put the half-cast back on and leave.
She walked out, told the doctor to go and give me the preferred option and a prescription for something stronger than Tylenol3 because I was off my head with pain. And then she used part of her savings for vacation to pay for the treatment.
I should have had PT afterwards but it was too much money. And all the followups and meds were cash at time of service .
Did I mention that I was working in home child care and the spousal unit was employed but the insurance was out of our financial reach? That broken ankle, go to the ER cost us hundreds of dollars and they billed the hell out us.
TL: DR- Go to the ER, they have to stabilize your condition and tell you to go see a doctor on your own dime for followup is more like it. Or did you think that stuff bad enough to go to the ER over routinely can be completely treated in that one ER visit?
“doctor lottery”? Ruby, as a Canadian, I can honestly say that is utter bullshit. Even for people who don’t have a family doctor (and that’s usually a choice on their part), there are plenty of walk-in clinics.
And here’s what happens whenthe same damn injury happens in canada. I know, because it happened to a partner I was living with.
He was transported by ambulance to the nearest emergency room. He was given morphine for the pain. He was thoroughly x rayed and immediately sent to surgery to have pins and reinforcements put in once they set the bones. He stayed over night. He came home with prescription meds for pain. He went to several follow up visits at the hospital. It cost us thirty dollars for the prescription. Thirty dollars to rent some crutches and two hundred for the special casdt that would allow he to gradually put weight on the leg, once the bones healed a bit and the swelling went down some. That’s it. And if wed had insurance, those costs would have been zero.
I really wish people down there actually had health care.
You know what? After a truly infuriating lecture touching on code-switching and AAE, I’m officially out of emotional strength to deal with “well maybe if poor people wanted to get healthcare, they would have the good sense to be less POOR” bullshit. No. Everybody, everywhere deserves good access to healthcare. The lives of the poor are exactly as valuable as the lives of the rich. It is truly sickening that anyone — anyone — would consider this a point worth arguing.
Bah. I need some happy now.
As for the American healthcare system, I’d take it over Canada’s because our’s produces the most innovation.
Ruby, I will happily clarify that point for you!
As someone who has worked intensively in biomedical research both in the US and the UK, I think that while I miss the shiny lab spaces and nice air conditioning I had in the US, there is no more net innovation than elsewhere because all the US provides is the geography and the countertops! Researchers tend to come from all over the world, and the best researchers go where the money is. In the US, it was rare to work alongside someone who originally came from the US – why would you hire Joe Average from Virginia where you could get Ms Superlative from Germany or India? The best researchers tend to be best-in-the-world specialists who come on an academic visa from other countries and cycle back through when their funding ends. The fact that a lot of biomedical innovation stems from the US is because, for a long time, there was a lot of money here that attracted the best researchers. But research and innovation are nomadic. If Canada can’t afford or won’t fund a big research budget, then they won’t get any innovation – simple as that.
Sadly, science funding in the US has been gouged so heavily by the right wing that it’s become impossible to plan your US research career beyond a year or two. The money has dried up. Science money comes from the government and charitable foundations; the government is kind of pushing the fact that All Science is Liberal Lies, and charities are worried about the recession – and we tend not to innovate if we’re not getting paid. Smart people don’t like living year-to-year and hand-to-mouth, so smart people leave science and academia for other careers in droves. You know what kills innovation? Living year-to-year and hand-to-mouth and losing smart people! That job I was working where I had no health insurance, so that I worked with pneumonia until I literally dropped from it? Yeah, that was as a researcher at a world-class institution who didn’t qualify for benefits at the hospital I worked at… I didn’t fix brain cancer THAT week, I can tell you! (It’s because I was sick that week.)
So in 2012 the NIH acquired $30.9 billion to pay the scientists, researchers and clinicians of America. (Military spending was over 1 trillion.) It’s a bad situation! There just aren’t enough scientists – there isn’t enough money to attract new ones – the budget is stagnant, and the formerly reliable Chinese and Indian researchers are finding the US a less attractive place to work. Dang! We need them! Here’s a great article: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/01/despite-dire-budget-outlook-pane.html
I’m digging working in the UK, though. Socialized healthcare is a nice bonus, and the EU money is pretty sweet. Thanks for your concern, Ruby – I appreciate that you took the time to do the research, and I look forward to hearing about your donation to the National Science Foundation or the National Institute of Health. Hugs! May the odds be ever in your favor!
Far as I can see, those who oppose social healthcare are like Muckabites – the people who opposed a good sewer system for the town I live in during the 19th Century, even though a) it would have cost the price of a pint of cheap arse-beer per resident per week, b) the town was literally sinking in its own sh*t due to drainage problems and c) the town had a number of Cholera epidemics. No matter what the problems of the proposed system, it’s better than what they got now. And yes, the main Muckabite arguement was money.
For those who want happy, I found a video of a dog on a skateboard:
Skateboarding dog is awesome. More happy: