We train ours to walk at heel, loose leash. But if they are together they will still pull and bark aggressively at other dogs. They are in training, not completely trained.
I’m not sure what you mean by properly, though. I would consider the dog walking close to me & slightly behind a good trained walk, and do if possible cross to avoid giving them temptation if there is a dog. Better to give them a chance to be good, than to have to correct them.
I’ve always had well trained dogs, but I currently have one I just cannot seem to get under control with other dogs on walks. She will pull and bark anytime I get anywhere near another dog. Seems vicious, she just wants to play so bad… I have another dog and they play but he’s more chill than her and she just wants to play so badly with every random dog in the world. Treats, spankings, training collar, bark collar, nothing has worked.
5th dog, only one I wasn’t easily able to train. Probably because she’s an abused rescue dog and I just can’t break her of it. Sometimes it’s just not easy. I have to choke up on her and cross the street to not freak people with dogs out.
I’m copying this comment I just wrote elsewhere because I think you might find it useful:
“I think there’s a lot of evidence that for most things (like “new tricks”) there isn’t any learning disadvantage for older dogs.
However, leash reactivity/aggression is not about teaching a dog a new trick (or even a new behavior) as much as it is trying to change an underlying emotional response to stimuli. I don’t know anything about your dog, and there are lots of reasons why dogs can react like that on leash (fear, intense desire to play and socialize, actual aggression), but usually if the dog is freaking out they are past the point where the “logical” part of their brain can make decisions for them.
The human analogy is that people of all ages can learn new skills, like how to cook a new recipe or build a cabinet or something. But if a person has a fear of heights, they can’t just learn the skill of not being scared of heights. That requires rewiring the base emotional response, which takes time and has a high rate of failure.
For dogs I worked with, we usually asked ourselves if we thought the dogs reactivity was lowering their quality of life. That is to say, does your dog need to be calm on leash to live a happy life? If you live in a city and she needs to navigate past dogs every time she goes to the bathroom, I’d say it’s worth trying to make that less stressful for her. If she lives in the suburbs or in a rural area, and she barely ever encounters other dogs anyway, why bother? The human analogy is: if a person works on skyscrapers for a living, they probably need to not be scared of heights, but many people are scared of heights and live totally fine and happy lives from the ground. Of course, a human can have some control over their environment and career, but dogs don’t have that luxury. We work with them where they are.
It’s also worth noting that even the best “rewiring methods” take a long time and usually only work to reduce the fear, not eliminate it. We do it because it will really improve the dog’s quality of life, not because we (selfishly) want a perfectly behaved dog to bring everywhere and do everything with.
A side note is that there are critical periods for dog socialization and development just like in humans. I haven’t looked into this in a while but me memory is that it occurs at like 8-12 weeks of age. Puppies in this period learn about how to interact and communicate with other other dogs in the same way we learn language early in life. If they aren’t socialized in this period, they usually struggle to effectively socialize for the rest of their lives. Still, this isn’t necessarily the cause of leash reactivity, so I’m just throwing it in as a side comment if you want to learn more.
AND lastly, if you do decide you need or want to work on your dog’s reactivity, I strongly recommend Grisha Stewart’s BAT 2.0. I am not affiliated with her in any way, but this is the technique recommended by reinforcement-based training organizations and has the most likelihood of reducing reactivity in my personal experience. The textbook is like literally hundreds of pages long and covers a ton of case-scenarios. It would take time to read and learn to do the protocol, and you need a BAT leash (a 15 ft leash) and lots of practice managing it, but I have seen dogs go from freaking out and screaming from seeing another dog >100 yrds away to being able to (tensely) stand to the side of a sidewalk and contain their panic as a dog passes. It won’t make a reactive dog confident and bomb proof, but it can make a huge difference when applied carefully and consistently, especially with other methods like look-at-that/counterconditioning, Karen Overall’s calmness protocol, and engage-disengage games.”
Way more. There’s lots of genuine posts on here and not karma farming bots. Also, my posts in c/lockpicking and c/balisong actually got replies fairly quickly. On reddit, I would’ve been met with downvotes or people who don’t even interact with my posts.
I would definitely die sooner than a lot of people because of my mechanical heart valve. The blood thinners and needing to make sure my blood isn’t too thin or thick would be harder since I’ve been getting it checked for over a decade and I’ve never seen them use a non-electric method of testing.
This is single payer healthcare. Instead of the drama and cost of a million little co-ops of a few hundred people making doctor patterns Patreons there’s just one tax collection arm and one payer arm.
I want universal healthcare. I was thinking about this since maybe a town or community could actually get something in place while nationwide universal healthcare seems decades away in the U.S.
That’s where it gets complicated. Your employer pays a lot more than $100. Your taxes would go up and your employer could be mandated to pass the healthcare savings on to you to largely offset your tax increase. The Wyden-Bennet plan predated the Affordable Care Act and would have mandated that. Obama’s healthcare people were concerned that would be very complex and would go back on his promise to allow people to keep their current doctors and insurance. So we ended up with a huge expansion in Medicaid instead (which was great but didn’t give us the systemic change we really needed).
Or the employer would have to pay more to balance the system.
All the plans show a large tax increase which I am fine with if we keep a stable system. Doctors have to be paid, along with nurses and that isn’t cheap.
I think employer insurance is an odd system but I get why it happened. I just think it is time for it to die.
I think we have to accept everyone will pay more in taxes but there will be surprise bills if there is an emergency, no delayed care while you switch jobs or the plethora of stupid issues that come up when it’s tied to an employer. People need to stop thinking it will cost less. It won’t and that’s Ok.
You are wrong. Costs will go down compared to health insurance costs in United States right now. Might end up taxing currently uninsured more but for most will be less and folks in poverty will gain more than they lose anyway
All of them actually. The talking point from the right (in the US) is that is will increase debt on the federal level. While this is true, they always leave out the fact that no one will be paying for regular health insurance anymore, which actually costs American tax payers more than what single payer would cost.
It would be more difficult to find one that disagrees with what I am saying
I doubt you get much of anything for 100$ a month; I have a free plan at work but my employer pays way more than 100 a month for that one… which is a high deductible plan
Maybe if you’re on Medicare or you are ina blue state and you are one welfare and completely broke… but that doesn’t add up. You may be forgetting your employer contributions
If you are arguing that we have a lot of folks living in poverty and their taxes might increase a bit I believe that is a bad faith argument.
If you get health insurance through your employer like most Americans then the employer paid parts will also disappear… but folks are so uninformed that they can’t see it
Facts are not bad faith. Pretending it will not cause taxes to increase is just silly, and why we have never been able to get it passed.
People like the idea until they find out their taxes will go up considerably. I am fine with that but stop trying to be dishonest. The money has to come from some place to fund the system. That means taxes will increase.
It’s bad faith to lie about total costs. Period. Our current system leaves tens of millions uninsured (most especially children, and many more millions underinsured.
United States is a third world country when it comes to health care for the poor.
Total cost will go down unless you pay basically nothing for health insurance.
Here is a cite using the Democrat Medicare for all numbers. gasp! It shows 20% like all the other cites I have seen.
You are the only one lying about cost. Your claim is that it will cost be less and it won’t. It won’t cost anyone less unless they don’t pay taxes. Otherwise, it will cost them more.
I don’t pay anything. I could have the one hundred per month plan and have the 250$ deductible as well or similar etc, but then my employer would be paying like 600-800 per month I believe so yours is actually more expensive as far as the whole system is concerned.
It isn’t. You keep saying that but nobody agrees with you. I gave a cite that showed the democrats plans and all cost more. None show it being cheaper.
Taxes go up, but money paid to health insurance goes down.
And you’re already paying most of the operating costs of universal healthcare in the form of Medicare/Medicaid administration taxes, you’re just not eligible to benefit.
So your taxes will increase, but not as much as you expect, and your total deductions will decrease unless you opt to keep private insurance. Every analysis of the topic inevitably concludes that we’re currently using the most expensive method of providing healthcare.
You mention farmers. They already have co-ops. If you’ve lived around those communities you know people can get apeshit about a semi of corn that might be a little wet.
I wouldn’t want to be on the local board that has to settle the account for aunt murtle’s 5th round of lung cancer while she’s on O2 and still on a pack a day. It’s easier to set guide rails - actually moral and responsible ones like not giving liver transplants to people with bac - when you didn’t grow up with aunt murtle’s kids.
Reading into your intention, this is actually more like health insurance than single payer healthcare. Not quite a million little coops, more like a few dozen. And it would end up having most of the same problems of modern US health insurance.
You’ll need someone to administer the program, so you have to give them some power over your money. That means they’d need the power to say “no” to people who are seeking healthcare resources for invalid reasons–things like Munchausen’s syndrome at first, but eventually they’d have to make calls about things that people actually need but can’t prove they need, just like health insurance does now.
If you don’t want do these things, I guarantee your neighbors will insist they be done (ever hung out on nextdoor? those are the people you’ll be pooling your money with). And you’ll go along, because it’s a hassle not to, and hey at least you’re getting your needs taken care of most of the time. If you manage to keep your program free of capitalist influences, you’re going to have to fight corruption instead: “Slip me some dough and I’ll make sure you get seen next.”
So in time you just end up with health insurance, and most of its flaws, if you don’t very carefully watch the people administering your program, if you don’t very carefully fight against the perverse incentives.
The biggest problem, of course, is that existing health insurance would fight it like penicillin fights bacteria. They have had decades to do regulatory capture in their benefit, and if another group comes along that’s almost-but-not-quite health insurance, they’re going to make sure that the regulations they captured keep it from going anywhere, up to the point of trying to make it explicitly illegal.
I think we’re in agreement about single payer, but this ^ is how it benefits us. The government has actual power to fight corruption and isn’t beholden to capital. Now if we only had a way to create a just government.
Not saying it would work, but what I’m describing is more bite size than a full health system. So if a group only committed to “everyone gets to see a general practitioner” then people are on their own for MRIs and chemo. Figure out how many patients a type of practitioner can handle in a year, then pool that many people to hire one. Same idea for any other role, like how many cars can one mechanic fix a year?
I’m not married to the idea, but more thinking about how could we take concrete steps towards universal health care, other common services, democratic workplaces. If people see a micro version working then it may inspire more ideas, attract more effort.
asklemmy
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.