From the "evil left wing" New York Times:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists
In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling
health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities.
Often, that was no accident.
Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole
or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the
worlds largest biotechnology companies.
E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists
drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.
The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms,
were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the
Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.
Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that
42 House members picked up some of its talking points: 22 Republicans
and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.
....
The e-mail messages and their attached documents indicate that the
statements were based on information supplied by Genentech employees
to one of its lobbyists, Matthew L. Berzok, a lawyer at Ryan,
MacKinnon, Vasapoli & Berzok who is identified as the "author" of the
documents. The statements were disseminated by lobbyists at a big law
firm, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal."
....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
Now tell me anything useful is ever going to occur in this country as
long as K-Street stands...
Greg G.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: I know maths is hard, but try to follow along.
:
: Suppose someone in their early twenties is considered "at risk" for
: diabetes. At $400 per quarter for testing, that's $1,600 per year.
Assuming
: 40 years for the disease to become acute, that's $64,000 directly out
of
: pocket. Factoring in lost opportunity costs, the real figure is in the
: neighborhood of $75,000. Further, only one person out of some larger
number
: (about ten) ever contract the disease. So then, $750,000 worth of
wealth is
: destroyed to protect some "thousands and thousands of dollars."
:
: Trust me on this, "thousands and thousands of dollars" is less than
3/4 of a
: million dollars.
:
: Admittedly, I'm not an expert (although I am good at maths). I just
: recollect seeing a compendium of reports that insist preventative
care, in
: the aggregate, is more expensive than the undetected result. Of course
this
: mantra ignores such things as Polio vaccine...
:
: Aside: I know it's what liberals do, and it's hard to avoid it, but
insults
: really are unbecoming.
So, what you're saying is that you'd rather lose your foot.
$1600/year sounds like cheap insurance to me. That's less than my
yearly deductible and 20% (plus?) that I shell out every other year for
a colonoskopy. But, I have a family history; nothing to do with my
lifestyle choices mind you. If I follow your logic I should bank that
money and put it toward my colon cancer treatment(s).
That's special.
Dave in Houston
Greg G. wrote:
>
> The "problem" with K-Street (a metonym for influence peddlers in DC)
> is that they do not disseminate information that is in the public
> interest, but rather their own. If congressmen knew what they were
> doing, and weren't looking to become employed by these same peddlers
> of influence after being ejected from office, perhaps they would view
> them with more skepticism. As it is, they are simply buying influence
> over laws and federal funding from morons hoping to profit at public
> expense. There are many other sources for the information you mention
> that are unbiased - but there's no money in that.
>
Yes, this is common. First, have you ever see an ad for a product touting
the superiority of the competition? Even our criminal justice system is
adversarial. Each side presents its most compelling case and the job of the
participants is to sort out the good from the bad. The evaluator(s) should
also take into consideration the source of the information given.
Secondly, I suggest there IS no source of unbiased information. Anywhere.
Thirdly, I stand by my position that the problem, if any, lies with the
congressman who cannot tell the difference between fact and fantasy or is
unwilling (or incapable) of either weighing the facts or the reputation of
the proponents.
Blame simply cannot be attached to the lobbyists.
diggerop said:
>"Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> diggerop said:
>>
>>>One thing I have noticed in more modern times, is that politicians from both
>>>sides, when they retire these days, in addition to generous superannuation
>>>and perks for life, seem to somehow have aqquired substantial business
>>>interests and huge assets along the way. Just lucky I guess. Union
>>>officials get lucky too.
>>>
>>>Maybe that's why they call us the "lucky country" ?
>>
>> Lucky for you, not so much, eh?
>>
>
>As Seamus O'Foolery was often wont to remark,
>"The whole country's fooked, for want of an Irish king."
Amusing statement from a man I've never heard of. Nor Google.
But it does seem there is nary a good king fit for this day and time.
Greg G.
HeyBub said:
>Greg G. wrote:
>> From the "evil left wing" New York Times:
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists'
>>
>> In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling
>> health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities.
>> Often, that was no accident.
>>
>> Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole
>> or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the
>> world's largest biotechnology companies.
>>
>> E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists
>> drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.
>>
>> The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms,
>> were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the
>> Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.
>>
>> Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that
>> 42 House members picked up some of its talking points: 22 Republicans
>> and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.
>> ....
>>
>> The e-mail messages and their attached documents indicate that the
>> statements were based on information supplied by Genentech employees
>> to one of its lobbyists, Matthew L. Berzok, a lawyer at Ryan,
>> MacKinnon, Vasapoli & Berzok who is identified as the "author" of the
>> documents. The statements were disseminated by lobbyists at a big law
>> firm, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal."
>> ....
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
>>
>> Now tell me anything useful is ever going to occur in this country as
>> long as K-Street stands...
>>
>
>Absolutely! Who knows more about an issue than the people or firms who live
>with it every day. Who has more insight, a company with literally thousands
>of man-years of directly applicable diligence and effort or a first-term
>congressman whose major life experience is with alfalfa dryers?
>
>Think about your local congressman. Do you want him setting the tariffs on
>hydrogenated yak-fat? Does he know squat about the ramifications of the "Law
>of the Sea" treaty?
>
>The "problem" you cite - if there is one - is with the congressmen, not the
>interested party providing what it believes is crucial information.
The "problem" with K-Street (a metonym for influence peddlers in DC)
is that they do not disseminate information that is in the public
interest, but rather their own. If congressmen knew what they were
doing, and weren't looking to become employed by these same peddlers
of influence after being ejected from office, perhaps they would view
them with more skepticism. As it is, they are simply buying influence
over laws and federal funding from morons hoping to profit at public
expense. There are many other sources for the information you mention
that are unbiased - but there's no money in that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101632.html
Greg G.
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:55:48 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Consider diabetes monitoring. Four hundred dollars for a doctor visit and
>lab tests every quarter quickly add up. Contrast this with a foot amputation
>if the diabetes is left undetected. Even at Obama's estimate of $30,000 for
>the surgery (it's more like $800), it's still cheaper to lose the foot.
You don't have one fucking clue what you're talking about. *Whatever*
a foot amputation costs in hospital, that's only the beginning of the
journey. There's the prerequisite hospital stay. Two weeks on average.
The visits by the physiotherapists, the prosthetics, and after you go
home, the occupational therapists. Temporary maybe permanent use of a
wheelchair. Possibly alterations done at the home. Maybe job loss.
Disability benefits. The costs keep soaring. The MONTHS of getting
used to a prosthetic limb. Maybe it works as it should maybe it
doesn't. If not, then reevaluation.
ANYWAY you want to slice it, costs balloon in the thousands and
thousands of dollars.
If you're going to open your big mouth, then at least make a feeble
attempt to back it up with a shred of knowledge and foresight. As it
is, right now, you're just come cretin flailing around in the dark.
On 15 Nov 2009 19:54:55 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> So who pays for this very basic insurance for the poor?
>>
>> It's FREE. just read the newspaper and they'll tell you. Medical
>> care for everyone at no cost. Its going to be just great.
>
>Yeah, yeah ...
>
>LOL!
>
>Some here in Jersey are looking forward to less taxes now they have elected
>a new governor. Sounds good. Hope my real estate and schooltaxes would go
>down too. Not holding my breath. Now that apparently some legal stuff is
>hopefully nearing its end, the Radburn assessments are estimated to go
>down, and that'll help my budget. But again: seeing is believing.
Have you replaced your legislature yet? If, it might not go up as
fast but nothing is going down.
diggerop said:
>"Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> diggerop said:
>>
>>>"Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> diggerop said:
>>>>
>>>>>One thing I have noticed in more modern times, is that politicians from
>>>>>both
>>>>>sides, when they retire these days, in addition to generous
>>>>>superannuation
>>>>>and perks for life, seem to somehow have aqquired substantial business
>>>>>interests and huge assets along the way. Just lucky I guess. Union
>>>>>officials get lucky too.
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe that's why they call us the "lucky country" ?
>>>>
>>>> Lucky for you, not so much, eh?
>>>>
>>>
>>>As Seamus O'Foolery was often wont to remark,
>>>"The whole country's fooked, for want of an Irish king."
>>
>> Amusing statement from a man I've never heard of. Nor Google.
>> But it does seem there is nary a good king fit for this day and time.
>>
>
>One hit from Google
>
>http://tiny.cc/KhyW7
>
>(g,r,d)
Ha! I missed that portion. And to be honest, I don't use Google
often, but another old-timer that doesn't search newsgroups.
So that makes you Digger O'Pfoolery - a wise(acre) man indeed! ;-)
Greg G.
"Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> diggerop said:
>Sesame Street is not the only puppet show in the US. ; )
>
> Exactly! Is this as big a problem in Oz, or are we unique in the
> venality of poly-ticks?
>
> This OT was more about who pulls the strings than health care.
> They've gotten so lazy they don't even rewrite their talking points.
>
Sadly, we have similar problems. The faceless men control politics in this
country. Has been like that for at least the last 100 years. Who the
faceless men are and what they represent changes at times, but too many
elected officials are under the control or influence of people who are
unelected and have self-serving interests. Lobbyists are part of the
problem.
One thing I have noticed in more modern times, is that politicians from both
sides, when they retire these days, in addition to generous superannuation
and perks for life, seem to somehow have aqquired substantial business
interests and huge assets along the way. Just lucky I guess. Union
officials get lucky too.
Maybe that's why they call us the "lucky country" ?
diggerop
"Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Sorry to hear that Oz isn't the utopia I'd hoped for. Back in the 80s
> I was determined to move there but got suckered into the US
> Constitution's "fair and equitable, all men are equal" justice thing.
> It wasn't...
If you feel you've been suckered into living here, why don't you move out?
We won't miss you. Ta Ta!
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:31:50 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Trust me on this, "thousands and thousands of dollars" is less than 3/4 of a
>million dollars.
I wouldn't trust you tie a shoelace. As to amputation, you know shit.
And, I'm fully cognizant of the long term costs of diabetes.
>Admittedly, I'm not an expert (although I am good at maths). I just
>recollect seeing a compendium of reports that insist preventative care, in
Just because you can add a few numbers, you think you're qualified to
calculate the long term costs of an amputation? Those costs run into
years of modifications, alterations and ongoing therapy. As a person
ages, their prosthesis needs continual modifications and alterations.
One other huge fact to consider. Amputating a foot for example, has
absolutely no effect on attenuating diabetes for one minute.
Amputation can or may save a life and or make it easier. Diabetes is a
severely chronic disease whether you amputate a foot or not. Any way
you want to look at it, those diabetes expenses are always going to be
there, so it makes absolutely no sense to amputate anything, as long
as symptoms can be controlled. Understand me, I'm not saying that
amputation is a more expensive problem to deal with than diabetes,
it's just a difference problem. Cost comparisons between the two are
meaningless.
Laying it all out as a simple one time charge as you did makes you
less responsible than a jackass.
Greg G. wrote:
> From the "evil left wing" New York Times:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists'
>
> In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling
> health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities.
> Often, that was no accident.
>
> Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole
> or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the
> world's largest biotechnology companies.
>
> E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists
> drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.
>
> The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms,
> were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the
> Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.
>
> Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that
> 42 House members picked up some of its talking points: 22 Republicans
> and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.
> ....
>
> The e-mail messages and their attached documents indicate that the
> statements were based on information supplied by Genentech employees
> to one of its lobbyists, Matthew L. Berzok, a lawyer at Ryan,
> MacKinnon, Vasapoli & Berzok who is identified as the "author" of the
> documents. The statements were disseminated by lobbyists at a big law
> firm, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal."
> ....
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
>
> Now tell me anything useful is ever going to occur in this country as
> long as K-Street stands...
>
Absolutely! Who knows more about an issue than the people or firms who live
with it every day. Who has more insight, a company with literally thousands
of man-years of directly applicable diligence and effort or a first-term
congressman whose major life experience is with alfalfa dryers?
Think about your local congressman. Do you want him setting the tariffs on
hydrogenated yak-fat? Does he know squat about the ramifications of the "Law
of the Sea" treaty?
The "problem" you cite - if there is one - is with the congressmen, not the
interested party providing what it believes is crucial information.
Greg G. wrote:
>
>> Secondly, I suggest there IS no source of unbiased information.
>> Anywhere.
>
> Not much. But it does exist. Even I'm not that cynical. ;-)
> If there were no unbiased sources for truth there would be no
> affordable technology or science or physics.
>
Meep!
Read a book once wherein the protagonist was the wife of a professor of
mathematics. Her observation of the faculty and students was interesting. In
those disciplines where truth was empirical (math, physics, engineering,
etc.), neither the students nor faculty paid much mind to how they dressed.
Their socks didn't match, the colors clashed, and so on.
In those disciplines where "truth" was a matter of majority vote (English
Literature, History, Renaissance Poetry, etc.), everybody wore a uniform.
The men wore tweed jackets with leather elbow patches and the women wore
basic black with a string of pearls.
The fine arts people had the worst of both worlds: "Truth" was equivocal
(Mozart or Maler?) and their clothes were tatters.
"Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> diggerop said:
>
>>"Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> diggerop said:
>>>Sesame Street is not the only puppet show in the US. ; )
>>>
>>> Exactly! Is this as big a problem in Oz, or are we unique in the
>>> venality of poly-ticks?
>>>
>>> This OT was more about who pulls the strings than health care.
>>> They've gotten so lazy they don't even rewrite their talking points.
>>>
>>
>>Sadly, we have similar problems. The faceless men control politics in this
>>country. Has been like that for at least the last 100 years. Who the
>>faceless men are and what they represent changes at times, but too many
>>elected officials are under the control or influence of people who are
>>unelected and have self-serving interests. Lobbyists are part of the
>>problem.
>
> Sorry to hear that Oz isn't the utopia I'd hoped for. Back in the 80s
> I was determined to move there but got suckered into the US
> Constitution's "fair and equitable, all men are equal" justice thing.
> It wasn't...
>
> The US media is so egocentric that seldom does one hear anything about
> another country unless we are dropping bombs on it. I read here and
> there, but it's no substitute for actually living there.
>
>>One thing I have noticed in more modern times, is that politicians from
>>both
>>sides, when they retire these days, in addition to generous superannuation
>>and perks for life, seem to somehow have aqquired substantial business
>>interests and huge assets along the way. Just lucky I guess. Union
>>officials get lucky too.
>>
>>Maybe that's why they call us the "lucky country" ?
>
> Lucky for you, not so much, eh?
>
>
> Greg G.
As Seamus O'Foolery was often wont to remark,
"The whole country's fooked, for want of an Irish king."
diggerop
"Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> From the "evil left wing" New York Times:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists'
>
> In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling
> health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities.
> Often, that was no accident.
>
> Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole
> or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the
> world's largest biotechnology companies.
>
> E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists
> drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.
>
> The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms,
> were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the
> Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.
>
> Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that
> 42 House members picked up some of its talking points: 22 Republicans
> and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.
> ....
>
> The e-mail messages and their attached documents indicate that the
> statements were based on information supplied by Genentech employees
> to one of its lobbyists, Matthew L. Berzok, a lawyer at Ryan,
> MacKinnon, Vasapoli & Berzok who is identified as the "author" of the
> documents. The statements were disseminated by lobbyists at a big law
> firm, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal."
> ....
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
>
> Now tell me anything useful is ever going to occur in this country as
> long as K-Street stands...
>
>
>
> Greg G.
Sesame Street is not the only puppet show in the US. ; )
Han wrote:
> Greg G.<[email protected]> wrote in news:o4nvf5tnfnnq2q2tj3fbvc4hsnrv3mq9t9@
> 4ax.com:
>
>> Now tell me anything useful is ever going to occur in this country as
>> long as K-Street stands...
>
> That is indeed scary. Especially when the congressman says he didn't know
> where his staff had gotten the script from.
Look the dude doesn't even know where the legislative language has come
from, nor what is in the bill -- why on earth would you expect him to know
where any support for or agin' it originates? These people are voting on
legislation that will fundamentally alter the nature of the relationship
between citizens and the government and they haven't even frickin' READ THE
@#$% BILL! Doesn't that concern anyone that people casting those votes
don't have any idea what they are voting for?
>
> What the guy said isn't as important as the way he came to say it.
>
> I am in favor of compulsory very basic insurance for everyone, paid for as
> much as possible by the insured, whether as an employee benefit or by
> him/her self. On yop of that should be options to get more/better
> coverage. As long as you had been paying for coverage at any insurance
> company (including a publicly organized or non-profit one) they would not
> be able
> to deny you coverage. I'm sure there are more nitpicking things to state
> in a law, but couldn't that be the basis?
>
> And if you choose not to get coverage for diabetes or heart disease, no
> covered kidney transplant or dialysis for you.
>
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: Han wrote:
:
: > Greg G.<[email protected]> wrote in
news:o4nvf5tnfnnq2q2tj3fbvc4hsnrv3mq9t9@
: > 4ax.com:
: >
: >> Now tell me anything useful is ever going to occur in this country
as
: >> long as K-Street stands...
: >
: > That is indeed scary. Especially when the congressman says he
didn't know
: > where his staff had gotten the script from.
:
: Look the dude doesn't even know where the legislative language has
come
: from, nor what is in the bill -- why on earth would you expect him to
know
: where any support for or agin' it originates? These people are voting
on
: legislation that will fundamentally alter the nature of the
relationship
: between citizens and the government and they haven't even frickin'
READ THE
: @#$% BILL! Doesn't that concern anyone that people casting those
votes
: don't have any idea what they are voting for?
Sure they do. You can bet they know their major contributors -
personally. You act as if legislators have no contact with his
big-money donors. What is that, a blind trust? Baucus has reportedly
taken $10 million from the insurance industry going back some years. Do
you expect people to believe that he doesn't know where the language in
a pro-insurance piece of legislation comes from?
Who's being naive now?
Dave in Houston
Greg G.<[email protected]> wrote in news:o4nvf5tnfnnq2q2tj3fbvc4hsnrv3mq9t9@
4ax.com:
> Now tell me anything useful is ever going to occur in this country as
> long as K-Street stands...
That is indeed scary. Especially when the congressman says he didn't know
where his staff had gotten the script from.
What the guy said isn't as important as the way he came to say it.
I am in favor of compulsory very basic insurance for everyone, paid for as
much as possible by the insured, whether as an employee benefit or by
him/her self. On yop of that should be options to get more/better coverage.
As long as you had been paying for coverage at any insurance company
(including a publicly organized or non-profit one) they would not be able
to deny you coverage. I'm sure there are more nitpicking things to state
in a law, but couldn't that be the basis?
And if you choose not to get coverage for diabetes or heart disease, no
covered kidney transplant or dialysis for you.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> Greg G.<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:o4nvf5tnfnnq2q2tj3fbvc4hsnrv3mq9t9@ 4ax.com:
>>
>>> Now tell me anything useful is ever going to occur in this country as
>>> long as K-Street stands...
>>
>> That is indeed scary. Especially when the congressman says he didn't
>> know where his staff had gotten the script from.
>>
>> What the guy said isn't as important as the way he came to say it.
>>
>> I am in favor of compulsory very basic insurance for everyone, paid
>> for as much as possible by the insured, whether as an employee
>> benefit or by him/her self. On yop of that should be options to get
>> more/better coverage. As long as you had been paying for coverage at
>> any insurance company (including a publicly organized or non-profit
>> one) they would not be able to deny you coverage. I'm sure there are
>> more nitpicking things to state in a law, but couldn't that be the
>> basis?
>>
>> And if you choose not to get coverage for diabetes or heart disease,
>> no covered kidney transplant or dialysis for you.
>
> So who pays for this very basic insurance for the poor?
>
Just like now when they come the ER:
You and me.
If they are under preventive care (so the story goes), care should be far
less expensive. At least in the long run.
The alternative would be accelerated dispatch, but that sounds so Nazi-
like.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:007bd58d$0$17128
[email protected]:
>
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>> So who pays for this very basic insurance for the poor?
>
> The ones who are already paying for it in the form of higher premiums
> to cover the costs of those who are not insured but rely on emergency
> room care.
>
> Lew
Yep. My insurance even covers that - an 8% surcharge on hospital bills (in
NY) to cover those who can't pay.
And that really means that with the reduced rates I get as part of a large
group, the individual who pays higher rates because he only can get a
private personal policy, pays even more. While I like paying the reduced
rates, it isn't fair for people like my coworker, who has to pay COBRA
rates for insurance.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> So who pays for this very basic insurance for the poor?
>
> It's FREE. just read the newspaper and they'll tell you. Medical
> care for everyone at no cost. Its going to be just great.
Yeah, yeah ...
LOL!
Some here in Jersey are looking forward to less taxes now they have elected
a new governor. Sounds good. Hope my real estate and schooltaxes would go
down too. Not holding my breath. Now that apparently some legal stuff is
hopefully nearing its end, the Radburn assessments are estimated to go
down, and that'll help my budget. But again: seeing is believing.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Greg G.<[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> HeyBub said:
>
>>Greg G. wrote:
>>> From the "evil left wing" New York Times:
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----------------- In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists'
>>>
>>> In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling
>>> health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities.
>>> Often, that was no accident.
>>>
>>> Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in
>>> whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one
>>> of the world's largest biotechnology companies.
>>>
>>> E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the
>>> lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for
>>> Republicans.
>>>
>>> The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law
>>> firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed
>>> in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of
>>> Congress.
>>>
>>> Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates
>>> that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points: 22
>>> Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for
>>> lobbyists. ....
>>>
>>> The e-mail messages and their attached documents indicate that the
>>> statements were based on information supplied by Genentech employees
>>> to one of its lobbyists, Matthew L. Berzok, a lawyer at Ryan,
>>> MacKinnon, Vasapoli & Berzok who is identified as the "author" of
>>> the documents. The statements were disseminated by lobbyists at a
>>> big law firm, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal."
>>> ....
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -----------------
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html?pagewante
>>> d=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
>>>
>>> Now tell me anything useful is ever going to occur in this country
>>> as long as K-Street stands...
>>>
>>
>>Absolutely! Who knows more about an issue than the people or firms who
>>live with it every day. Who has more insight, a company with literally
>>thousands of man-years of directly applicable diligence and effort or
>>a first-term congressman whose major life experience is with alfalfa
>>dryers?
>>
>>Think about your local congressman. Do you want him setting the
>>tariffs on hydrogenated yak-fat? Does he know squat about the
>>ramifications of the "Law of the Sea" treaty?
>>
>>The "problem" you cite - if there is one - is with the congressmen,
>>not the interested party providing what it believes is crucial
>>information.
>
> The "problem" with K-Street (a metonym for influence peddlers in DC)
> is that they do not disseminate information that is in the public
> interest, but rather their own. If congressmen knew what they were
> doing, and weren't looking to become employed by these same peddlers
> of influence after being ejected from office, perhaps they would view
> them with more skepticism. As it is, they are simply buying influence
> over laws and federal funding from morons hoping to profit at public
> expense. There are many other sources for the information you mention
> that are unbiased - but there's no money in that.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR20050
> 62101632.html
>
>
>
> Greg G.
Now, now. You are underestimating the capabilities of congressmen to
weigh what is good for the nation. Phooey on you to doubt their good
intentions.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Greg G. wrote:
>>
>> The "problem" with K-Street (a metonym for influence peddlers in DC)
>> is that they do not disseminate information that is in the public
>> interest, but rather their own. If congressmen knew what they were
>> doing, and weren't looking to become employed by these same peddlers
>> of influence after being ejected from office, perhaps they would view
>> them with more skepticism. As it is, they are simply buying influence
>> over laws and federal funding from morons hoping to profit at public
>> expense. There are many other sources for the information you mention
>> that are unbiased - but there's no money in that.
>>
>
> Yes, this is common. First, have you ever see an ad for a product
> touting the superiority of the competition? Even our criminal justice
> system is adversarial. Each side presents its most compelling case and
> the job of the participants is to sort out the good from the bad. The
> evaluator(s) should also take into consideration the source of the
> information given.
>
> Secondly, I suggest there IS no source of unbiased information.
> Anywhere.
>
> Thirdly, I stand by my position that the problem, if any, lies with
> the congressman who cannot tell the difference between fact and
> fantasy or is unwilling (or incapable) of either weighing the facts or
> the reputation of the proponents.
>
> Blame simply cannot be attached to the lobbyists.
This time I fully agree.
Now how is a voter to react in the middle of a legislative session? The
a*h* congress critter is there for the rest of the term.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> diggerop said:
>
>>"Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> diggerop said:
>>>
>>>>One thing I have noticed in more modern times, is that politicians from
>>>>both
>>>>sides, when they retire these days, in addition to generous
>>>>superannuation
>>>>and perks for life, seem to somehow have aqquired substantial business
>>>>interests and huge assets along the way. Just lucky I guess. Union
>>>>officials get lucky too.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe that's why they call us the "lucky country" ?
>>>
>>> Lucky for you, not so much, eh?
>>>
>>
>>As Seamus O'Foolery was often wont to remark,
>>"The whole country's fooked, for want of an Irish king."
>
> Amusing statement from a man I've never heard of. Nor Google.
> But it does seem there is nary a good king fit for this day and time.
>
One hit from Google
http://tiny.cc/KhyW7
(g,r,d)
diggerop
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> So who pays for this very basic insurance for the poor?
It's FREE. just read the newspaper and they'll tell you. Medical care for
everyone at no cost. Its going to be just great.
J. Clarke said:
>Greg G. wrote:
>> HeyBub said:
>>
>>> Greg G. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, I suggest there IS no source of unbiased information.
>>>>> Anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> Not much. But it does exist. Even I'm not that cynical. ;-)
>>>> If there were no unbiased sources for truth there would be no
>>>> affordable technology or science or physics.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Meep!
>>
>> http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/strange/boston-school-suspends-students-who-say-meep-1258133451438
>>
>>> Read a book once wherein the protagonist was the wife of a professor
>>> of mathematics. Her observation of the faculty and students was
>>> interesting. In those disciplines where truth was empirical (math,
>>> physics, engineering, etc.), neither the students nor faculty paid
>>> much mind to how they dressed. Their socks didn't match, the colors
>>> clashed, and so on.
>>
>> Geeks?
>>
>>> In those disciplines where "truth" was a matter of majority vote
>>> (English Literature, History, Renaissance Poetry, etc.), everybody
>>> wore a uniform. The men wore tweed jackets with leather elbow
>>> patches and the women wore basic black with a string of pearls.
>>
>> Authoritarians?
>>
>>> The fine arts people had the worst of both worlds: "Truth" was
>>> equivocal (Mozart or Maler?) and their clothes were tatters.
>>
>> Hippies?
>
>I recall reading somewhere that some observer of human nature or other had
>observed that "scientists are boring people with interesting ideas, artists
>are interesting people with boring ideas".
I'll buy that - as a generalization. I should be able to quote the
source, as it sounds familiar, but memory fails me.
And I suppose that makes authoritarians boring people with boring
ideas. Sounds even more reasonable. :)
Greg G.
diggerop said:
>"Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> From the "evil left wing" New York Times:
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists'
>> ....
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
>>
>> Now tell me anything useful is ever going to occur in this country as
>> long as K-Street stands...
>>
>
>Sesame Street is not the only puppet show in the US. ; )
Exactly! Is this as big a problem in Oz, or are we unique in the
venality of poly-ticks?
This OT was more about who pulls the strings than health care.
They've gotten so lazy they don't even rewrite their talking points.
Greg G.
J. Clarke wrote:
>
> I recall reading somewhere that some observer of human nature or
> other had observed that "scientists are boring people with
> interesting ideas, artists are interesting people with boring ideas".
Dilbert cartoon:
Ratbert: "I'm using painting as a way of 'finding myself' "
Bob the Dinosaur: "You're right over there, Ratbert, next to that bad
painting."
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 05:55:12 -0500, the infamous Greg
G.<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>From the "evil left wing" New York Times:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
>
>Now tell me anything useful is ever going to occur in this country as
>long as K-Street stands...
So, issue seasonal tags for lobbyists, too, wot?
--
When we are planning for posterity,
we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
-- Thomas Paine
Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> said:
>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 05:55:12 -0500, the infamous Greg
>G.<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>From the "evil left wing" New York Times:
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
>>
>>Now tell me anything useful is ever going to occur in this country as
>>long as K-Street stands...
>
>So, issue seasonal tags for lobbyists, too, wot?
NOW you're talking change I can believe in!
Just make certain it's a looong season.
Greg G.
Han wrote:
> Greg G.<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:o4nvf5tnfnnq2q2tj3fbvc4hsnrv3mq9t9@ 4ax.com:
>
>> Now tell me anything useful is ever going to occur in this country as
>> long as K-Street stands...
>
> That is indeed scary. Especially when the congressman says he didn't
> know where his staff had gotten the script from.
>
> What the guy said isn't as important as the way he came to say it.
>
> I am in favor of compulsory very basic insurance for everyone, paid
> for as much as possible by the insured, whether as an employee
> benefit or by him/her self. On yop of that should be options to get
> more/better coverage. As long as you had been paying for coverage at
> any insurance company (including a publicly organized or non-profit
> one) they would not be able to deny you coverage. I'm sure there are
> more nitpicking things to state in a law, but couldn't that be the
> basis?
>
> And if you choose not to get coverage for diabetes or heart disease,
> no covered kidney transplant or dialysis for you.
So who pays for this very basic insurance for the poor?
Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>> Greg G.<[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:o4nvf5tnfnnq2q2tj3fbvc4hsnrv3mq9t9@ 4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Now tell me anything useful is ever going to occur in this country
>>>> as long as K-Street stands...
>>>
>>> That is indeed scary. Especially when the congressman says he
>>> didn't know where his staff had gotten the script from.
>>>
>>> What the guy said isn't as important as the way he came to say it.
>>>
>>> I am in favor of compulsory very basic insurance for everyone, paid
>>> for as much as possible by the insured, whether as an employee
>>> benefit or by him/her self. On yop of that should be options to get
>>> more/better coverage. As long as you had been paying for coverage at
>>> any insurance company (including a publicly organized or non-profit
>>> one) they would not be able to deny you coverage. I'm sure there
>>> are more nitpicking things to state in a law, but couldn't that be
>>> the basis?
>>>
>>> And if you choose not to get coverage for diabetes or heart disease,
>>> no covered kidney transplant or dialysis for you.
>>
>> So who pays for this very basic insurance for the poor?
>>
> Just like now when they come the ER:
>
> You and me.
You and me don't pay unless we go to the hospital for something.
> If they are under preventive care (so the story goes), care should be
> far less expensive. At least in the long run.
So it's cheaper to sew up a knife wound or put someone back together that
got hit by a bus if they have "preventive care"?
> The alternative would be accelerated dispatch, but that sounds so
> Nazi- like.
Greg G. wrote:
> HeyBub said:
>
>> Greg G. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Secondly, I suggest there IS no source of unbiased information.
>>>> Anywhere.
>>>
>>> Not much. But it does exist. Even I'm not that cynical. ;-)
>>> If there were no unbiased sources for truth there would be no
>>> affordable technology or science or physics.
>>>
>>
>> Meep!
>
> http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/strange/boston-school-suspends-students-who-say-meep-1258133451438
>
>> Read a book once wherein the protagonist was the wife of a professor
>> of mathematics. Her observation of the faculty and students was
>> interesting. In those disciplines where truth was empirical (math,
>> physics, engineering, etc.), neither the students nor faculty paid
>> much mind to how they dressed. Their socks didn't match, the colors
>> clashed, and so on.
>
> Geeks?
>
>> In those disciplines where "truth" was a matter of majority vote
>> (English Literature, History, Renaissance Poetry, etc.), everybody
>> wore a uniform. The men wore tweed jackets with leather elbow
>> patches and the women wore basic black with a string of pearls.
>
> Authoritarians?
>
>> The fine arts people had the worst of both worlds: "Truth" was
>> equivocal (Mozart or Maler?) and their clothes were tatters.
>
> Hippies?
I recall reading somewhere that some observer of human nature or other had
observed that "scientists are boring people with interesting ideas, artists
are interesting people with boring ideas".
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> So who pays for this very basic insurance for the poor?
>
> It's FREE. just read the newspaper and they'll tell you. Medical care for
> everyone at no cost. Its going to be just great.
>
>
You must be reading some awfully dumbed-down newspapers. Where you
from? the deep South?
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:55:48 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Consider diabetes monitoring. Four hundred dollars for a doctor visit and
>> lab tests every quarter quickly add up. Contrast this with a foot amputation
>> if the diabetes is left undetected. Even at Obama's estimate of $30,000 for
>> the surgery (it's more like $800), it's still cheaper to lose the foot.
>
> You don't have one fucking clue what you're talking about. *Whatever*
> a foot amputation costs in hospital, that's only the beginning of the
> journey. There's the prerequisite hospital stay. Two weeks on average.
> The visits by the physiotherapists, the prosthetics, and after you go
> home, the occupational therapists. Temporary maybe permanent use of a
> wheelchair. Possibly alterations done at the home. Maybe job loss.
> Disability benefits. The costs keep soaring. The MONTHS of getting
> used to a prosthetic limb. Maybe it works as it should maybe it
> doesn't. If not, then reevaluation.
>
> ANYWAY you want to slice it, costs balloon in the thousands and
> thousands of dollars.
>
> If you're going to open your big mouth, then at least make a feeble
> attempt to back it up with a shred of knowledge and foresight. As it
> is, right now, you're just come cretin flailing around in the dark.
>
You must have missed Obama's statement that US doctors would rather
amputate than treat diabetes because they could get $30,000 for the
amputation. There is no question that the patient would incur much more
than the $700-$1200 that the surgeon would get, but for him to suggest
the US surgeons routinely cut off appendages to make the big bucks was
ludicrous:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/reformedchicksblabbing/2009/08/obamas-amputation-allegation.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/08/orthopedic_surgeons_respond_to.html
- Doug
Ed Pawlowski said:
>"Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Sorry to hear that Oz isn't the utopia I'd hoped for. Back in the 80s
>> I was determined to move there but got suckered into the US
>> Constitution's "fair and equitable, all men are equal" justice thing.
>> It wasn't...
>
>If you feel you've been suckered into living here, why don't you move out?
>We won't miss you. Ta Ta!
We? We who? Do you speak for everyone in the US? Or here?
I happened to be born here, bought into all the BS they teach you in
youth, then found that it's just that. Justice is bought and paid for
every day. Weren't you the one who recently emailed me off list about
the "evil lawyers?" Further, you don't know darned thing about my
experiences with the legal system or venal politicians. Regardless of
how I feel about this country, the people in it, and the potential it
has, authoritarians en masse combined with self-serving public
servants have let this crap get out of control and undermined the
essence of what it was intended to be. If a general consensus wants me
gone, I'll disappear. I should probably find something better to do
anyway. Otherwise, you are free to implement your reader's filter.
Ciao!
Greg G.
HeyBub said:
>Greg G. wrote:
>>
>> The "problem" with K-Street (a metonym for influence peddlers in DC)
>> is that they do not disseminate information that is in the public
>> interest, but rather their own. If congressmen knew what they were
>> doing, and weren't looking to become employed by these same peddlers
>> of influence after being ejected from office, perhaps they would view
>> them with more skepticism. As it is, they are simply buying influence
>> over laws and federal funding from morons hoping to profit at public
>> expense. There are many other sources for the information you mention
>> that are unbiased - but there's no money in that.
>>
>
>Yes, this is common. First, have you ever see an ad for a product touting
>the superiority of the competition? Even our criminal justice system is
>adversarial. Each side presents its most compelling case and the job of the
>participants is to sort out the good from the bad. The evaluator(s) should
>also take into consideration the source of the information given.
That's why the "participants" make the salaries/benefits they do.
Theoretically. But it's apparently not enough for many. Ethics are
nearly nonexistent in many of the players. And that includes judges,
lawyers, congressmen, preachers, media, and your favorite corporation.
>Secondly, I suggest there IS no source of unbiased information. Anywhere.
Not much. But it does exist. Even I'm not that cynical. ;-)
If there were no unbiased sources for truth there would be no
affordable technology or science or physics.
>Thirdly, I stand by my position that the problem, if any, lies with the
>congressman who cannot tell the difference between fact and fantasy or is
>unwilling (or incapable) of either weighing the facts or the reputation of
>the proponents.
And by extension, the voters who put them there. Yet I consider it
improper that if a man does his job with integrity he makes what the
taxpayers allot for the job. But if he exercises poor judgment or
outright ignores the facts he is rewarded on the sly for doing favors
for those who desire them. IMHO that is a systemic defect which harms
us all. Remove the in-your-face temptation and most would relent.
>Blame simply cannot be attached to the lobbyists.
Of course it can. It's called morality, decency, honor, honesty. Are
they the only ones at fault? Of course not. If lobbying didn't work,
people would stop paying them to shill. I'm not picking on any one
lobbyist, I'm picking on one facet of the system as it exists as a
whole. I could sell non-existent timeshares, bogus stocks, or crack on
the street corner. But I don't. Not from fear of prosecution, but
because I consider it bad for society - the one I live in and hope
will better itself. Additionally, lobbyists are paid huge sums of
money and where do you think these funds come from? You and I, every
time we buy a product from a company who employs a lobbyist. Most know
full well what they are doing and yet exercise no self-restraint in
the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
Ignorant voters, venal politicians, agenda driven lobbyists and media.
I understand what you are driving at, but at this rate we'd be better
of with a King. At least you'd only have one candidate to vet. ;-)
Greg G.
HeyBub said:
>Greg G. wrote:
>>
>>> Secondly, I suggest there IS no source of unbiased information.
>>> Anywhere.
>>
>> Not much. But it does exist. Even I'm not that cynical. ;-)
>> If there were no unbiased sources for truth there would be no
>> affordable technology or science or physics.
>>
>
>Meep!
http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/strange/boston-school-suspends-students-who-say-meep-1258133451438
>Read a book once wherein the protagonist was the wife of a professor of
>mathematics. Her observation of the faculty and students was interesting. In
>those disciplines where truth was empirical (math, physics, engineering,
>etc.), neither the students nor faculty paid much mind to how they dressed.
>Their socks didn't match, the colors clashed, and so on.
Geeks?
>In those disciplines where "truth" was a matter of majority vote (English
>Literature, History, Renaissance Poetry, etc.), everybody wore a uniform.
>The men wore tweed jackets with leather elbow patches and the women wore
>basic black with a string of pearls.
Authoritarians?
>The fine arts people had the worst of both worlds: "Truth" was equivocal
>(Mozart or Maler?) and their clothes were tatters.
Hippies?
;-)
Greg G.
diggerop said:
>"Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> diggerop said:
>>Sesame Street is not the only puppet show in the US. ; )
>>
>> Exactly! Is this as big a problem in Oz, or are we unique in the
>> venality of poly-ticks?
>>
>> This OT was more about who pulls the strings than health care.
>> They've gotten so lazy they don't even rewrite their talking points.
>>
>
>Sadly, we have similar problems. The faceless men control politics in this
>country. Has been like that for at least the last 100 years. Who the
>faceless men are and what they represent changes at times, but too many
>elected officials are under the control or influence of people who are
>unelected and have self-serving interests. Lobbyists are part of the
>problem.
Sorry to hear that Oz isn't the utopia I'd hoped for. Back in the 80s
I was determined to move there but got suckered into the US
Constitution's "fair and equitable, all men are equal" justice thing.
It wasn't...
The US media is so egocentric that seldom does one hear anything about
another country unless we are dropping bombs on it. I read here and
there, but it's no substitute for actually living there.
>One thing I have noticed in more modern times, is that politicians from both
>sides, when they retire these days, in addition to generous superannuation
>and perks for life, seem to somehow have aqquired substantial business
>interests and huge assets along the way. Just lucky I guess. Union
>officials get lucky too.
>
>Maybe that's why they call us the "lucky country" ?
Lucky for you, not so much, eh?
Greg G.
Han wrote:
>>
>> So who pays for this very basic insurance for the poor?
>>
> Just like now when they come the ER:
>
> You and me.
>
> If they are under preventive care (so the story goes), care should be
> far less expensive. At least in the long run.
EVERY study shows that preventative care is WAY more expensive than to treat
the result. Preventative care may be more beneficial for the individual, but
it costs more.
Consider diabetes monitoring. Four hundred dollars for a doctor visit and
lab tests every quarter quickly add up. Contrast this with a foot amputation
if the diabetes is left undetected. Even at Obama's estimate of $30,000 for
the surgery (it's more like $800), it's still cheaper to lose the foot.
Cost is NOT a reason for preventation or detection care.
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:18:56 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>You must have missed Obama's statement that US doctors would rather
>amputate than treat diabetes because they could get $30,000 for the
>amputation. There is no question that the patient would incur much more
>than the $700-$1200 that the surgeon would get, but for him to suggest
>the US surgeons routinely cut off appendages to make the big bucks was
>ludicrous:
I would agree that it's a scandalous statement to make, true or not.
But, my guess would be that the statement was designed to insert some
anger against the medical industry thereby using that anger to gain
additional public support for his health care bills. Whatever designs
the man has, he's certainly not stupid.
Considering the scavenging and greed for profit that is gaining so
much notoriety lately in the financial and health care industries, it
makes one wonder how much truth if any, is in the statement.
diggerop said:
>"Greg G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Exactly! Is this as big a problem in Oz, or are we unique in the
>> venality of poly-ticks?
>>
>> This OT was more about who pulls the strings than health care.
>> They've gotten so lazy they don't even rewrite their talking points.
>>
>
>Sadly, we have similar problems. The faceless men control politics in this
>country. Has been like that for at least the last 100 years. Who the
>faceless men are and what they represent changes at times, but too many
>elected officials are under the control or influence of people who are
>unelected and have self-serving interests. Lobbyists are part of the
>problem.
>
>
>Maybe that's why they call us the "lucky country" ?
And why they presciently named the movie, "The Wizard of Oz!"
Watch that man behind the curtain... Or those men...
Cue the authoritarian tin foil hat conspiracy debunkers right about...
now.
Greg G.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:55:48 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Consider diabetes monitoring. Four hundred dollars for a doctor
>> visit and lab tests every quarter quickly add up. Contrast this with
>> a foot amputation if the diabetes is left undetected. Even at
>> Obama's estimate of $30,000 for the surgery (it's more like $800),
>> it's still cheaper to lose the foot.
>
> You don't have one fucking clue what you're talking about. *Whatever*
> a foot amputation costs in hospital, that's only the beginning of the
> journey. There's the prerequisite hospital stay. Two weeks on average.
> The visits by the physiotherapists, the prosthetics, and after you go
> home, the occupational therapists. Temporary maybe permanent use of a
> wheelchair. Possibly alterations done at the home. Maybe job loss.
> Disability benefits. The costs keep soaring. The MONTHS of getting
> used to a prosthetic limb. Maybe it works as it should maybe it
> doesn't. If not, then reevaluation.
>
> ANYWAY you want to slice it, costs balloon in the thousands and
> thousands of dollars.
>
> If you're going to open your big mouth, then at least make a feeble
> attempt to back it up with a shred of knowledge and foresight. As it
> is, right now, you're just come cretin flailing around in the dark.
I know maths is hard, but try to follow along.
Suppose someone in their early twenties is considered "at risk" for
diabetes. At $400 per quarter for testing, that's $1,600 per year. Assuming
40 years for the disease to become acute, that's $64,000 directly out of
pocket. Factoring in lost opportunity costs, the real figure is in the
neighborhood of $75,000. Further, only one person out of some larger number
(about ten) ever contract the disease. So then, $750,000 worth of wealth is
destroyed to protect some "thousands and thousands of dollars."
Trust me on this, "thousands and thousands of dollars" is less than 3/4 of a
million dollars.
Admittedly, I'm not an expert (although I am good at maths). I just
recollect seeing a compendium of reports that insist preventative care, in
the aggregate, is more expensive than the undetected result. Of course this
mantra ignores such things as Polio vaccine...
Aside: I know it's what liberals do, and it's hard to avoid it, but insults
really are unbecoming.
Dave in Houston wrote:
>
> So, what you're saying is that you'd rather lose your foot.
> $1600/year sounds like cheap insurance to me. That's less than my
> yearly deductible and 20% (plus?) that I shell out every other year
> for a colonoskopy. But, I have a family history; nothing to do with
> my lifestyle choices mind you. If I follow your logic I should bank
> that money and put it toward my colon cancer treatment(s).
> That's special.
>
I'm not saying that. I AM saying that one cannot justify prevention vs
ultimate outcome on the basis of cost alone.
Those who say spending money now for prevention reducees costs later for the
consequences are simply wrong.
In your case, if you can find nine other people similarily configured, you
SHOULD all put your money in a pool to be used when ONE of you gets in
trouble.
From a purely economic perspective, that is.