Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:31:11 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>On Mar 21, 5:03Â pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Larry Jaques" wrote:
>>> > What is your definition of a living wage, Han? Â Does it differ by
>>> > local, or does one wage fit all, for singles, couples, and couples
>>> > with ten children? Should I pay triple wages for a family man when
>>> > the
>>> > single guy is probably in better shape and can do more work for my
>>> > pay?
>>>
>>> > The vast majority of people I have seen in emergency rooms around
>>> > the
>>> > West since 1966 have been non-English speaking Hispanics. What you
>>> > are
>>> > suggesting is illegal (hiring people who aren't supposed to be in
>>> > the
>>> > country in the first place) and naive (thinking that they would
>>> > purchase insurance even if they could.) Â The same goes for the poor,
>>> > who also go to the emergency wards
>>>
>>> -----------------------------
>>> Spoken like a true bigot.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>
>>No, Lew... THIS is spoken like a true, but ever so carefully guarded,
>>bigot:
>>
>>>> Mark & Juanita
>>
>>>> No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the
>>>> election
>>>>but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.
>
> Bullshit to both of you.
>
> Mark was saying (IMHO) that the id^H^Hgood folks who voted for Obama
> were so blinded by his race/color, and the historical moment it would
> be to elect him, that they failed to see what kind of extraordinarily
> ineffectual liberal (self-censored) he truly was. If you thought
> Shrub was bad, wait and see what kind of ruination happens to our
> country in the _next_ 3 years.
>
> Nix the PC blinders and/or buy a clue, guys. We don't care what color
> some bozo is. We just care that he's a bozo.
>
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner; you have captured exactly what I was
saying. Unfortunately, in our current PC society, any mention at all of
race, unless it is by the race industry is considered bigoted and racist.
Go figure.
> Nexxxxt!
>
> --
> Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
> Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
> -- Oprah Winfrey
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Mar 17, 12:00=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... I'm going to balance my check book.
>
> By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have therefore
> been paid in perpetuity.
>
> Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
Crap.
Your subject line made this look racier than it ended up being!
Oh well...
RonB
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
> [email protected]:
>
>> To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy
>> is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.
>
> You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already. Better to
> get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or death and
> exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this idea of everyone
> for themselves AND let the other guy rot.
I don't think people object to that, but man do object to how the government
is going about it. Read the bill and get back to us. It needs some fixing.
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:39:39 -0500, Norvin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> INTERNET WARNING:
>
> If you get an email titled "Nude photo of Nancy Pelosi,"
>don't open it.... It contains a nude photo of Nancy Pelosi.
You owe me a new monitor!
Really LOL!
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
"I'm not exactly burned out, but I'm a little bit scorched and there's some smoke damage."
"Larry Jaques" wrote:
> What is your definition of a living wage, Han? Does it differ by
> local, or does one wage fit all, for singles, couples, and couples
> with ten children? Should I pay triple wages for a family man when
> the
> single guy is probably in better shape and can do more work for my
> pay?
>
> The vast majority of people I have seen in emergency rooms around
> the
> West since 1966 have been non-English speaking Hispanics. What you
> are
> suggesting is illegal (hiring people who aren't supposed to be in
> the
> country in the first place) and naive (thinking that they would
> purchase insurance even if they could.) The same goes for the poor,
> who also go to the emergency wards
-----------------------------
Spoken like a true bigot.
Lew
"Han" wrote:
> The essence of what you say is probably correct. However, the
> Repugni-ones
> have completely lost the ball because here they had the opportunity
> to come
> up with really useful stuff, and all they can say is NO.
>
> The legislative process is horsetrading, and if you say NO you get
> nothing.
---------------------------------------
I'm convinced the "Just Say NO" strategy of the Republican party is
strictly racist based.
Is a misguided attempt to disrupt the ability of the Obama
administration to govern.
(Remember J DeMint's comment?)
These days, the Republicans might as well show up wearing their white
sheets.
It's too bad, the country needs two healthy political parties to
provide the best government; however, the far right has hijacked the
Republican party and rendered them less than functional, thus
stymieing the business of Congress.
Hard as they have tried to defeat his agenda, they have gotten their
collective ass kicked, while Obama, with a smile on his face, has
scored as major victory.
Time to move on and fight the next battle.
Lew
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/22/2010 10:07 AM, Dave In Texas wrote:
>>
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Nobody is told "you must buy car insurance". They are told that _if_
>>> you have a car and _if_ you want to register it to be operated on
>>> public roads, _then_ you are required to have liability insurance.
>>>
>>> If you don't have a car or don't operate it on public roads then you
>>> are not required to have car insurance.
>>
>> So, if your major organs don't function then you won't be required to
>> have health insurance.
>
> And you have some kind of point here?
The point is that the state of Texas mandates that I have/purchase
liability auto insurance if I want to drive on public roadways.
Dave in Houston
On 22 Mar 2010 10:59:04 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> So you think it's a good idea to continue the policies that got us
>> here in the first place, trebled? <boggle>
>
>The policies that got us here were lack of regulation, and glorifying and
>rewarding greed. In reverse order.
What changed? Fanny and Freddie are still doing *exactly* the same things
that got us in trouble in the first place. We're still spending money that
our grandchildren cannot ever repay. ...and three times more of it.
>The problem is how to fix it without causing more harm than is already
>done. And indeed, evenyually our grandchildren will pay the price.
No, they'll never be able to afford it and we're now on the path of doubling
down every few years. There is *NO* reduction in even the rate of increase in
sight.
On Mar 22, 10:14=A0pm, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
> >news:[email protected]:
>
> >> On 3/21/2010 7:35 PM, Han wrote:
>
> >>> So "effectiveness studies" should give you better care (less side
> >>> effects) and less costs. =A0Your irrational fear of someone deciding
> >>> for you what kind of care you are going to get has warped your mind.
> >>> Do your research of what you think you need and have a good talk with
> >>> someone you trust, then with your doctor. =A0And, please, do write do=
wn
> >>> your living will, advance directives or whatever you want to call
> >>> them.
>
> >> I don't mind giving you a personal, real life, less than 72 hours old,
> >> example of the above.
>
> >> Appointment at the VA for shoulder problem on this past Friday AM
> >> (believe me, I _earned_ the VA medical care ("entitlement", if you
> >> wish), the hard way!).
>
> >> This was the third visit on this issue, taking four months to get this
> >> far, each visit hopefully getting closer to an actual diagnoses, and
> >> subsequent relief, based on something besides conjecture on the part
> >> of the primary care physician, a GI specialist (but as long as I ask
> >> the right questions, a competent health care professional).
>
> >> Not enough doctors to go around in Orthopedics, so, after two and a
> >> half hour wait, get a PA, =A0(very accented English and hard to
> >> understand, but very nice, attentive and obviously caring). PA
> >> ultimately makes determination to give steroid injection in shoulder
> >> (step 5 of apparently a 10 step procedure that must be followed, in
> >> order).
>
> >> Relief is not as obvious as have been led to believe, so after a few
> >> hours start doing some research on the expected efficacy of the
> >> injection, with particular emphasis upon the site of the PA
> >> administered injection, (posterior shoulder in this instance, with the
> >> main problem exhibited on the anterior).
>
> >> =A0From a doctor friend: "A lateral injection is generally the preferr=
ed
> >> site and best for the desired result. The posterior location is
> >> considered the easiest place to administer the injection. It is the
> >> site that requires the least amount of skill, and the site where it is
> >> recommended for the unskilled to administer the procedure".
>
> >> Light pops on ... basically, got a steroid injection (ouch!), in an
> >> area of the shoulder least likely to benefit from the procedure, and
> >> by an unskilled PA, with no doctor available.
>
> >> Next possible appointment, and to then OK the escalation to the step 6
> >> - to see if an MRI is warranted: late July, 2010.
>
> >> Don't get me wrong, this better than no care at all, but arguably
> >> "second rate" by any medical yardstick.
>
> >> That said, I accept the entirety of any blame because I failed to do
> >> my homework beforehand. Had I done that, I could have asked the
> >> correct, informed, questions and probably gotten a better result.
>
> >> However, this anecdote is NOT partisan conjecture ... it is actual,
> >> day before yesterday, "US government health care", in practice.
>
> >> Moral: we should be damn careful what we wish for ...and, if you get
> >> nothing else from this little anecdote, most definitely prepare
> >> yourself to do MUCH more in managing your own health care when this
> >> bill passes.
>
> >> ... and it appears that it will pass.
>
> > As LDosser, I have a comparable story, but far less severe than either =
of
> > you. =A0Pains in shoulder radiating down to hand. =A0Turned out that I =
have
> > some osteoarthritis in neck vertebrae. =A0Exercise helps, but all the t=
ests
> > to get there! =A0Including something the name of which I forget, whereb=
y
> > needles administered electric shocks to find out whether there was
> > something wrong with the nerves in my arm. =A0My problem was made worse=
by
> > my posture sitting at a keyboard almost all day.
>
> Testing electric conduction. They were going to put me through that hoop
> until the neuro-surgeon got a look at the MRI and called me at home. Just
> about had a heart attack getting a call from a physician at home. :o()
I once had a doctor call me at night. Evidently the lab called her
reporting that my fasting blood sugar was 40 so she immediately called
me and left a voice mail. When I called back she asked how I was
feeling, then sorta laughed. If the lab was accurate she would have
noticed it when I was there and that there was really no point in
calling in any case. ;-)
>A "deeming resolution" is perhaps a scuzzy, gutless approach to legislation.
So is "vote changing" (i.e., legislators can change their vote
afterwards, as long as it doesn't change the outcome of the vote).
And so is the practice of tacking unrelated ammendments (usually
related to pork-barrel spending) to other bills.
It's sausage, no matter how we grind it.
-Zz
LDosser wrote:
> "Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:26:04 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>On Mar 21, 12:52 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[snipped the usual]
>>>
>>>>. You are free to feel that way, but if
>>>> you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there,
>>>> don't
>>>> try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.
>>>
>>>How about a country with a Patriot Act?
>>
>> ...who doesn't press for the removal of some 20 million KNOWN illegal
>> aliens or for the protection of our borders. Uckingfay Insaneyay.
>> The act isnt about security, it's about POWER, plain and simple.
>
> All the act does is legalize what has been going on for decades.
... and makes them voters. And for whom do you think those votes will
fall? There is a method to the Dem's madness and it is going to destroy the
country.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On 21 Mar 2010 15:36:36 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the
>> election
>> but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.
>
>Since when has bungling the economy, financial regulation, and war anything
>to do with skin color? You are against black people becoming involved in
>politics, or am I misunderstanding?
So, doubling down on the economy, financial regulations, and the war will make
it better. The fact is that many did vote for Obama because he was black.
More than voted against him because he was black.
>
>For the record: not only the last previous administration is guilty on
>many fronts (although the worst happened during their term(s)), quite a
>number before were guilty too. And personal and corporate responsibility
>should include an enforcement mechanism.
...and things were so bad that we had to do even more of the same. Great
logic there.
On 20 Mar 2010 12:50:18 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
>[email protected]:
>
>> To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy
>> is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.
>
>You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already. Better to
>get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or death and
>exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this idea of everyone
>for themselves AND let the other guy rot.
>
>There ought to be a better way than democracy ...
It is sad to think this bill will force those who are uninsured to
become insured, whether they have a job or not. The IRS will police
the work of checking to make sure everyone buys medical coverage else
be fined like a criminal. This is not freedom, at all. This bill
is wrong.
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2010 15:28:02 GMT, the infamous Han <[email protected]>
> scrawled the following:
>
>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>> There ought to be a better way than democracy ...
>>>>
>>> We don't have a democracy, we have a representative republic.
>>> However,
>>> that statement above is still truly frightening. i.e., you are
>>> willing to surrender your personal freedoms to someone who claims to
>>> know better than you what is in your best interests. You are free to
>>> feel that way, but if you do, go find a country that is governed that
>>> way and live there, don't try to force that enslavement on the rest of
>>> us.
>> I don't think you will ever get it, Mark & Juanita. You are now paying
>> for their healthcare at emergency room rates. Get them a living wage
>> job, and have them pay for their own health care.
>
> What is your definition of a living wage, Han? Does it differ by
> local, or does one wage fit all, for singles, couples, and couples
> with ten children? Should I pay triple wages for a family man when the
> single guy is probably in better shape and can do more work for my
> pay?
>
> The vast majority of people I have seen in emergency rooms around the
> West since 1966 have been non-English speaking Hispanics. What you are
> suggesting is illegal (hiring people who aren't supposed to be in the
> country in the first place) and naive (thinking that they would
> purchase insurance even if they could.) The same goes for the poor,
> who also go to the emergency wards
>
>
>> Your idea that this bill is forcing people to do anything is absurd.
>> They'll get the choice of insurance and even no insurance. But since
>> someone needs to pay for emergency care, even if they don't, fine them if
>> they don't get some coverage. That is choice.
>
> That's choice, eh? I can either get insurance (which I don't want and
> can't afford) or pay a fine? Pay for coverage or pay for nothing?
> You probably think that when the Mafia guys come to a store on your
> street and ask for protection money that it's OK, too, don't you? Both
> are examples of outright extortion to me. You state that they're not
> forcing people to do anything, then saying that they'll be fined if
> they don't get insurance. How can you reconcile those two statements
> which are in direct conflict?
>
>
>> And yes, I do believe
>> that people should pay taxes, and this is indeed another tax of sorts. I
>> would like individual responsibility, but "they" should not have to pay
>> triply inflated proces just because they don't work for Harvard
>> University or GM.
>
> How much insurance tax should someone who makes $10,000 per year pay?
> Are your taxes thresholded or do the homeless pay, too?
>
> Until the gov't does away with the extravagant fees we pay for
> supporting the tens of millions of illegal aliens who are in the
> country, the bills we see will be far too high. It's only one of many
> reasons that this healthcare bill is neither functionally nor
> economically sound.
>
> If the bill is passed today, the _only_ people who will directly
> benefit from anything about it will be the attorneys involved on
> either side of the courtroom. And the billions wasted could have gone
> toward a real healthcare solution. It's truly sad and disgusting.
Add to that that the ten years taxes for six years of payout means the
guvmint will have 4 years of income they can throw into the general fund
thereby reducing the deficit but adding to the national debt just as SS
does now. This will make things appear somewhat better for the 2012
elections, however the reality is even more debt for the chillun to pay off.
>
> What we need are extreme measures, COMPLETELY OVERHAULING the
> following: the medical system, the pharmaceutical system, the legal
> system, the legislative branch of the gov't, and the Border Patrol.
> Allowing the latter to actually do their jobs would be a great help to
> most of the above systems immediately, but that's just a start.
>
> (And if the above gives you any idea that I'm a racist, feel free to
> discard that notion. I'll happily continue to date interracially.)
>
>
> --
> If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
> shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
> -- Samuel Butler
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:10:28 -0500, the infamous Swingman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On 3/21/2010 2:03 PM, Robatoy wrote:
>
>> earn so that they can be taxed/plundered. Same-ol'-same-old. And when
>> the powers at the helm want to get bolder in their quest for rape/
>> pillage/taxes, they also know they need to be careful that there
>> aren't too many guns around as the serfs DO get pissed off.
>
>"Politicians prefer unarmed peasants" ... an oldie, but goodie, bumper
>sticker of yore.
After today, I'll bet that more Demonrats believe in that little
saying. I predict an extreme backlash to this forced insurance crap
they call "a healthcare package". Duck and cover, folks. I believe
the plumbum may be about to hit the fan. We're in for a rough week.
--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler
On Mar 23, 11:32=A0am, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> My news server was down yesterday so I had to copy krw'S post from
> Google. =A0Unfortunately, that caused the loss of one level of >, so I
> indented my responses below. =A0Sorry 'bout that.
>
> Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:24:28 -0500
> Local: Sun, Mar 21 2010 4:24 pm
> Subject: Re: OT - When I get home tonight ...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:52:09 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > how on earth does finding insurance for less than 10% of the
> >> US population justify nationalizing 1/6 of the economy,
> >Nationalizing? =A0Last time I looked, the "public option" was dead.
>
> You're delusional if you don't think that is the end game. =A0Controlling
> insurance is the same thing with a different name.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Maybe so, maybe no. =A0But you're crying before you're hu=
rt. =A0And
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 compared to what we have today, some version of universal=
health
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 care would be a great improvement.
Bullshit. This bill has nothing to do with "health care" and
*everything* to do with control. If it were about "health care" for
30M (a phony number) people, it wouldn't need 2700 pages. It wouldn't
need 1600 new IRS agents. It wouldn't need all the new agencies. It
*is* about control of the economy. It *IS* unconstitutional.
> > destroying a
> >> system with which most people are satisfied,
> >Oh, yeah? =A0The polls show 40 some percent for, 40 some percent against
> >the total bill. =A0When the individual parts are polled, support is well=
in
> >the majority.
>
> When asked the right question, sure.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 So when multiple polls show support for something that yo=
u
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 disagree with, the poll must be biased? =A0Yeah, right.
Nope. That's the way polls work. Sure, some will like aspects of
anything, when phrased one way and not so much when phrased another.
Some will like the idea of a free lunch, until they are told how much
that free lunch cost them. Yes, the polls were biased. They all
are. It's clear that the majority of the people don't like this bill
as it is.
> > and setting us on a road to
> >> inferior, rationed, health care as the program spending spirals out of
> >> control?
> >Rationed? =A0See the above reference. =A0Spiraling spending? =A0Accordin=
g to
> >the non-partisan CBO, the bill will save money.
>
> Complete nonsense. =A0Have you looked into the assumptions the CBO was
> REQUIRED
> to figure in? =A0...including the estimates for the "recovery" and the $.=
5T
> write-down of seniors?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Once again, the CBO is deemed non partisan only if it agr=
ees
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 with you. =A0Of course, in your defense, you're not the o=
nly one
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 who does that - lots of folks in this group are uilty.
Bullshit again. I said nothing about "partisan". Its "analysis", by
law, was simply a turn the crank spreadsheet crunching of the
assumptions fed in; garbage in - garbage out. The assumptions were
*garbage*. They always are. Look at the cost of any government
program vs. what was estimated. GIGO.
> > =A0Why does it take a 3000 page bill to insure 30 million people?
> >> =A0This bill is not about health care, it is about complete, absolute
> >> control over peoples' lives.
> >Watch out for those black helicopters!
>
> No, you'd better watch out for Congress. =A0They've already stolen your
> brain. =A0Your wallet is next (but you likely won't miss it).
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 LOL
The truth isn't funny.
> >And speaking of that "public option", the US is the *only* industrialize=
d
> >country where people can go broke paying medical bills. =A0Every other s=
uch
> >country provides some sort of health care guarantees, whether private,
> >public, or a mix. =A0But you, and folks like you, keep repeating "Everyo=
ne
> >is out of step but me."
>
> Japan?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 For some strange reason, Japan wasn't included on the web=
page
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 referenced below. =A0But it does have universal health ca=
re, in
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 fact it's system is considered among the best. =A0See:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system_in_Japan
>
> >If you'd care to see how those countries, and even some of the
> >"developing" countries handle health care, look at:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
> >But I doubt you care, you'd rather just keep on blathering falsehoods an=
d
> >exaggerations.
>
> No falsehoods or exaggerations at all. =A0We're broke and your children a=
re
> will be underwater for life.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I definitely agree with you that we're broke. =A0But it w=
as 8 years
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 of Shrub that got us there.
You're full of bullshit today. Bush was an absolute piker compared to
Obama, Pelosi, and Reed.
On Mar 21, 11:32=A0am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote innews:eac1c0fa-bc46-4f03-8cb8-53=
[email protected]:
>
> > On Mar 21, 12:52=A0am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [snipped the usual]
>
> >>. =A0You are free to feel that way, but if
> >> you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there,
> >> don't try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.
>
> > How about a country with a Patriot Act?
>
> I feel fine living in this country with a sort of democratic representati=
ve =A0
> republic. =A0(See other posts of mine referencing Radburn). =A0What I obj=
ect to
> is the rabid reelection fever and crazed Pavlovian reactions to lobbyists=
.
>
> And that all has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, Robatoy. =A0I despis=
e
> some of the provisions there. =A0Remember, in Holland you now have to car=
ry
> ID all the time since the EU reguulation of that aspect became effective,
> and in the US you better have ID with you too. =A0What about Kanuckistan,
> Robatoy?
>
I raised the Patriot Act as an obvious example of a republican double
standard when they describe health reform as a loss of freedom. From
where I am sitting, either party is nothing but a collective of power
hungry scumbags driven by the lobbyists/special interest groups. And
no matter who the president is, he's influenced by way too many
rasputins like Dick Cheney or Rahm Emanuel. That Emanuel is one shady
sunnuvabitch.
As far as ID being obligatory up here in the tundra? Just when you're
operating a motor vehicle.
And when it comes to The Netherlands, I wouldn't live there for 20
million Euros or on a bet. Those people are crazeeeee. <G>
But, really... when has it been any different in history? A few with
power control the freedoms of the serfs JUST enough to let them gather/
earn so that they can be taxed/plundered. Same-ol'-same-old. And when
the powers at the helm want to get bolder in their quest for rape/
pillage/taxes, they also know they need to be careful that there
aren't too many guns around as the serfs DO get pissed off.
And what was the reaction of the Kanuckistanis when the government
announced a gun registry/control program? Well, the sheeple went along
just fine... but many said: "fuuuck, I better get meself a heater or
two and hide them." A few other saw yet another opportunity to take
advantage of a porous border with the US and started smuggling guns
and selling them. End result? More murders than before gun control.
(Yes, I know, other factors play into this as well.)
On Mar 21, 5:03=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Larry Jaques" wrote:
> > What is your definition of a living wage, Han? =A0Does it differ by
> > local, or does one wage fit all, for singles, couples, and couples
> > with ten children? Should I pay triple wages for a family man when
> > the
> > single guy is probably in better shape and can do more work for my
> > pay?
>
> > The vast majority of people I have seen in emergency rooms around
> > the
> > West since 1966 have been non-English speaking Hispanics. What you
> > are
> > suggesting is illegal (hiring people who aren't supposed to be in
> > the
> > country in the first place) and naive (thinking that they would
> > purchase insurance even if they could.) =A0The same goes for the poor,
> > who also go to the emergency wards
>
> -----------------------------
> Spoken like a true bigot.
>
> Lew
No, Lew... THIS is spoken like a true, but ever so carefully guarded,
bigot:
>> Mark & Juanita
>> No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the elect=
ion
>>but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.
On 21 Mar 2010 15:28:02 GMT, the infamous Han <[email protected]>
scrawled the following:
>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>> There ought to be a better way than democracy ...
>>>
>>
>> We don't have a democracy, we have a representative republic.
>> However,
>> that statement above is still truly frightening. i.e., you are
>> willing to surrender your personal freedoms to someone who claims to
>> know better than you what is in your best interests. You are free to
>> feel that way, but if you do, go find a country that is governed that
>> way and live there, don't try to force that enslavement on the rest of
>> us.
>
>I don't think you will ever get it, Mark & Juanita. You are now paying
>for their healthcare at emergency room rates. Get them a living wage
>job, and have them pay for their own health care.
What is your definition of a living wage, Han? Does it differ by
local, or does one wage fit all, for singles, couples, and couples
with ten children? Should I pay triple wages for a family man when the
single guy is probably in better shape and can do more work for my
pay?
The vast majority of people I have seen in emergency rooms around the
West since 1966 have been non-English speaking Hispanics. What you are
suggesting is illegal (hiring people who aren't supposed to be in the
country in the first place) and naive (thinking that they would
purchase insurance even if they could.) The same goes for the poor,
who also go to the emergency wards
>Your idea that this bill is forcing people to do anything is absurd.
>They'll get the choice of insurance and even no insurance. But since
>someone needs to pay for emergency care, even if they don't, fine them if
>they don't get some coverage. That is choice.
That's choice, eh? I can either get insurance (which I don't want and
can't afford) or pay a fine? Pay for coverage or pay for nothing?
You probably think that when the Mafia guys come to a store on your
street and ask for protection money that it's OK, too, don't you? Both
are examples of outright extortion to me. You state that they're not
forcing people to do anything, then saying that they'll be fined if
they don't get insurance. How can you reconcile those two statements
which are in direct conflict?
>And yes, I do believe
>that people should pay taxes, and this is indeed another tax of sorts. I
>would like individual responsibility, but "they" should not have to pay
>triply inflated proces just because they don't work for Harvard
>University or GM.
How much insurance tax should someone who makes $10,000 per year pay?
Are your taxes thresholded or do the homeless pay, too?
Until the gov't does away with the extravagant fees we pay for
supporting the tens of millions of illegal aliens who are in the
country, the bills we see will be far too high. It's only one of many
reasons that this healthcare bill is neither functionally nor
economically sound.
If the bill is passed today, the _only_ people who will directly
benefit from anything about it will be the attorneys involved on
either side of the courtroom. And the billions wasted could have gone
toward a real healthcare solution. It's truly sad and disgusting.
What we need are extreme measures, COMPLETELY OVERHAULING the
following: the medical system, the pharmaceutical system, the legal
system, the legislative branch of the gov't, and the Border Patrol.
Allowing the latter to actually do their jobs would be a great help to
most of the above systems immediately, but that's just a start.
(And if the above gives you any idea that I'm a racist, feel free to
discard that notion. I'll happily continue to date interracially.)
--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler
Dave In Texas wrote:
>
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Dave In Texas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> It is no secret that a great number of people voted for the current
>>>> president *because* of his skin color . . . .
>>>
>>> How 'great' a number of people [do you think] voted against the
>>> current
>>> president because of his skin color?
>>> Inquiring minds . . . .
>>>
>>
>> There may have been a few, but as a personal opinion, not many.
>
> I could have predicted that response.
>>
>> OTOH, do you really believe that the 96% black vote that he garnered was
>> *not* based upon racism?
>
> He's a Democrat; Any Democrat would have gotten 96% of the black
> vote.
Umm, no. Although blacks predominantly vote Democrat, which is completely
baffling considering the results of the programs Democrats have foisted upon
them for the past 50 years, the previously largest percentage was 94% for
Johnson in 1964 after the Republicans helped him pass the civil rights act.
Clinton garnered 74% in 1992, Gore got 90% in 2000, Kerry got 88%. 96% was
pretty much unprecedented.
Actually the black population is a case study in what happens to a group
that allows itself to become a dependency class. Look at the unemployment
rate, the percentage of unwed, single parent households in that group. It
was not always that way. Before the growth of welfare, those rates were
equivalent to the rest of the country (especially the family statistics).
Congress has just passed a law that is going to try to transform the rest of
the country into a dependency class.
>
> Dave in Houston
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Han wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
... snip
>
> I don't think you will ever get it, Mark & Juanita. You are now paying
> for their healthcare at emergency room rates. Get them a living wage
> job, and have them pay for their own health care.
>
> Your idea that this bill is forcing people to do anything is absurd.
> They'll get the choice of insurance and even no insurance. But since
> someone needs to pay for emergency care, even if they don't, fine them if
> they don't get some coverage. That is choice. And yes, I do believe
> that people should pay taxes, and this is indeed another tax of sorts. I
> would like individual responsibility, but "they" should not have to pay
> triply inflated proces just because they don't work for Harvard
> University or GM.
>
I don't think you are ever going to get this until it smacks you between
the eyes in the future Han. If the only thing this bill did was provide
means to prevent having indigent care performed through emergency rooms, the
bill wouldn't need over 3000 pages (and that's not all of the bill, much of
that 3000 pages is references to other federal laws that are amended,
modified, or superseded by this abomination. There are elements of this
bill that set up "health care effectiveness panels" -- in real people terms,
these are panels that are going to decide, by bureaucratic fiat what
constitutes cost-effective treatment and who gets that treatment. It
contains language that dictates many elements of our lives having nothing
directly to do with healthcare. As the costs mount (as they are going to
do, it is ludicrous to think that a system for which taxes start now and
benefits start 4 years later is going to result in next cost reductions
after that first 10 years), those panels are also going decide how to ration
that care and who the privileged classes will be that get the best care as
well as dictating lifestyles based upon whatever the current health fad is
to "keep people healthy for the good of the system". Given the current
rhetoric, it's those nearing retirement age who are going to be considered
expendable when the cost crunches come.
>
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 3/20/2010 10:51 PM, Phisherman wrote:
>>> On 20 Mar 2010 12:50:18 GMT, Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark& Juanita<[email protected]> wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
>>>> [email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US
>>>>> economy is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.
>>>> You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already.
>>>> Better to get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy
>>>> and/or death and exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than
>>>> this idea of everyone for themselves AND let the other guy rot.
>>>>
>>>> There ought to be a better way than democracy ...
>>>
>>> It is sad to think this bill will force those who are uninsured to
>>> become insured, whether they have a job or not. The IRS will police
>>> the work of checking to make sure everyone buys medical coverage else
>>> be fined like a criminal. This is not freedom, at all. This bill
>>> is wrong.
>> One wonders what the Supreme Court is going to say about a law that
>> requires people to purchase a product as a condition of existence in
>> the US.
>>
>> As for their "tax credits", what makes the blithering idiots think
>> that people who are too poor to pay for insurance pay enough in taxes
>> for the credits to make a difference.
>
> People was too low income get money from your government for living. Why
> should you have to pay for their health care at emergency room rates?
>
> You are not advocating to just put the poor slobs out of their misery,
> are you?
>
He's saying if they're in the 40% of folks who don't pay income taxes, a
tax credit is worth zilch - so still not able to afford health insurance
- unless it's done like the current "earned income" tax credit where you
get a income tax refund even if you paid no income tax.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave In Texas wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> It is no secret that a great number of people voted for the current
>>> president *because* of his skin color . . . .
>>
>> How 'great' a number of people [do you think] voted against the
>> current
>> president because of his skin color?
>> Inquiring minds . . . .
>>
>
> There may have been a few, but as a personal opinion, not many.
I could have predicted that response.
>
> OTOH, do you really believe that the 96% black vote that he garnered was
> *not* based upon racism?
He's a Democrat; Any Democrat would have gotten 96% of the black vote.
Dave in Houston
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> d.williams wrote:
>
> In no case in which self-executing rules were used, was the rule ever
> used
> to pass a partisan, controversial pair of bills in which one of them would
> be peeled off and sent to the president for signature and the other, main
> resolution, sent to the Senate for reconciliation, debate, and passage.
> This is absolutely unprecedented and a travesty. Even the most die-hard
> supporter of socialized medicine ought to get the fact that Pelosi has
> ripped up the Constitution and is making things up as she goes along. To
> use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy is
> nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.
>
Considering the current administration, this surprises you?
On 3/21/2010 8:27 PM, LDosser wrote:
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 3/21/2010 7:35 PM, Han wrote:
>>
>>> So "effectiveness studies" should give you better care (less side
>>> effects) and less costs. Your irrational fear of someone deciding for
>>> you what kind of care you are going to get has warped your mind. Do your
>>> research of what you think you need and have a good talk with someone
>>> you
>>> trust, then with your doctor. And, please, do write down your living
>>> will, advance directives or whatever you want to call them.
>>
>> I don't mind giving you a personal, real life, less than 72 hours old,
>> example of the above.
>>
>> Appointment at the VA for shoulder problem on this past Friday AM
>> (believe me, I _earned_ the VA medical care ("entitlement", if you
>> wish), the hard way!).
>>
>> This was the third visit on this issue, taking four months to get this
>> far, each visit hopefully getting closer to an actual diagnoses, and
>> subsequent relief, based on something besides conjecture on the part
>> of the primary care physician, a GI specialist (but as long as I ask
>> the right questions, a competent health care professional).
>>
>> Not enough doctors to go around in Orthopedics, so, after two and a
>> half hour wait, get a PA, (very accented English and hard to
>> understand, but very nice, attentive and obviously caring). PA
>> ultimately makes determination to give steroid injection in shoulder
>> (step 5 of apparently a 10 step procedure that must be followed, in
>> order).
>>
>> Relief is not as obvious as have been led to believe, so after a few
>> hours start doing some research on the expected efficacy of the
>> injection, with particular emphasis upon the site of the PA
>> administered injection, (posterior shoulder in this instance, with the
>> main problem exhibited on the anterior).
>>
>> From a doctor friend: "A lateral injection is generally the preferred
>> site and best for the desired result. The posterior location is
>> considered the easiest place to administer the injection. It is the
>> site that requires the least amount of skill, and the site where it is
>> recommended for the unskilled to administer the procedure".
>>
>> Light pops on ... basically, got a steroid injection (ouch!), in an
>> area of the shoulder least likely to benefit from the procedure, and
>> by an unskilled PA, with no doctor available.
>>
>> Next possible appointment, and to then OK the escalation to the step 6
>> - to see if an MRI is warranted: late July, 2010.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, this better than no care at all, but arguably
>> "second rate" by any medical yardstick.
>>
>> That said, I accept the entirety of any blame because I failed to do
>> my homework beforehand. Had I done that, I could have asked the
>> correct, informed, questions and probably gotten a better result.
>>
>> However, this anecdote is NOT partisan conjecture ... it is actual,
>> day before yesterday, "US government health care", in practice.
>>
>> Moral: we should be damn careful what we wish for ...and, if you get
>> nothing else from this little anecdote, most definitely prepare
>> yourself to do MUCH more in managing your own health care when this
>> bill passes.
>
> You need to do that regardless.
>
> I have a story similar to yours playing out over 42 months. Difference
> being civilian treatment: steroid injection of lumbar spine, progressing
> to spinal stenosis and surgery for fusion of lumbar vertebrae,
> progressing to continued issues and an MRI of the cervical spine showing
> stenosis that was Obviously there prior to the first surgery,
> progressing to fusion of cervical vertabrae. ALL choreographed by The
> Insurance Company who determined the allowability of the MRIs, and the
> initial Useless steroid injection. Had I thought about it, I could have
> Faked symptoms to get the MRI of my neck at the same time as the lumbar
> area and may have had both surgeries sooner. And, of course, all the
> screwing around left damage ...
>
> Not that I'm a fan of the idiotic bill being voted on as we speak.
My little complaint pales in comparison ... sorry to hear that. Going
though similar insurance dance with youngest daughter's bid to not go
blind ... tough choices, but it could be 1900 with NO choices.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
d.williams wrote:
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> ... I'm going to balance my check book.
>>
>> By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have
>> therefore been paid in perpetuity.
>>
>> Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...
>>
>> --
> A "deeming resolution" is perhaps a scuzzy, gutless approach to
> legislation. So it shouldn't be surprising that the Republicans used
> it 36 times in 2005 qnd 2006 when they controlled the House, and
> Democrats used it 49 times in 2007 and 2008. It's interesting that
> now, when it concerns a very high profile piece of legislation. it's
> painted as a new "unconstitutional" flaunting of the rules. As if any
> of them had any regard for rules and fairness in the first place,
> there's an agenda in Congress, and it ain't aimed at doing what's
> best for me and you.
A "deeming resolution" was used THREE times (not 36) during the 109th
Congress (Jan 2005 - Jan 2007) and only ONE of those moved a bill (H.R. 653,
S.1932) to the president's desk. The Democrats claim the rule has been used
18 times since the 101st Congress (beginning Jan 1989). Of these 18, only
FOUR bills in 21 years were moved to the president's desk:
H.J.R 45 - Raising the debt limit in the 111th Congress,
S. 1932 - Deficit Reduction Act in the 109th Congress,
S. 4 - The line item veto act, 104th Congress, and
H.R. 1 - The Family Medical Leave Act, 102nd Congress
All of the rest either failed , were matters entirely within the function of
the particular house (i.e., appointment of Sergeant at Arms), or, more
often, were part of the "Gephardt Rule" (House Rule XXIII) for raising the
debt limit.
Bottom line: The "Slaughter Solution" is unprecedented in its application,
breathtaking in its contemplated use, beyond comprehension in its content,
and, as you said, scuzzy beyond description.
Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 21, 5:03Â pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Larry Jaques" wrote:
>> > What is your definition of a living wage, Han? Â Does it differ by
>> > local, or does one wage fit all, for singles, couples, and couples
>> > with ten children? Should I pay triple wages for a family man when
>> > the
>> > single guy is probably in better shape and can do more work for my
>> > pay?
>>
>> > The vast majority of people I have seen in emergency rooms around
>> > the
>> > West since 1966 have been non-English speaking Hispanics. What you
>> > are
>> > suggesting is illegal (hiring people who aren't supposed to be in
>> > the
>> > country in the first place) and naive (thinking that they would
>> > purchase insurance even if they could.) Â The same goes for the poor,
>> > who also go to the emergency wards
>>
>> -----------------------------
>> Spoken like a true bigot.
>>
>> Lew
>
> No, Lew... THIS is spoken like a true, but ever so carefully guarded,
> bigot:
>
>>> Mark & Juanita
>
>>> No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the
>>> election
>>>but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.
I've explained this in more detail to Han's comment. However, the only
bigotry in the above statement was pointing out that many people in this
country voted for the current disaster we have in the white house purely and
solely because he *is* black. Those are the true bigots and racists, those
who only look at a person's outward appearance and make decisions based upon
that. Because of those racists and bigots who voted either because "he
looked like them" or out of some feeling of racial penance, we now have a
narcissistic demagogue in the White House. I could care less what his color
is, I'm only concerned that it was patently obvious that beneath that
external appearance he is red to the core and sees it as his duty to remake
the country that he hates in its present form to, at best, a European style
socialized democracy.
Your accusation of racism is beyond the pale.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
Dave In Texas wrote:
>
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> It is no secret that a great number of people voted for the current
>> president *because* of his skin color . . . .
>
> How 'great' a number of people [do you think] voted against the
> current
> president because of his skin color?
> Inquiring minds . . . .
>
There may have been a few, but as a personal opinion, not many.
OTOH, do you really believe that the 96% black vote that he garnered was
*not* based upon racism?
> Dave in Houston
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On 3/20/2010 9:35 AM, Han wrote:
> What we might not agree on is whether national affordable compulsory
> health insurance and some more regulation of the health industry are good
> things.
I most definitely agree with the goals, but not necessarily the means to
obtain them, particularly with the current situation.
IMO, this particular legislation is less interested in reforming health
care than it is in providing mechanisms that are no more than thinly
disguised wedges intended to crack the underlying system of government.
I have always been lucky with pretty good and affordable health
> insurance coverage because of my employment over the years. But I have
> also seen a colleague who was forced into COBRA and the expense that
> entails.
Try being self-employed for the past 40 years, then ask me if I give a
rat's ass about COBRA. :)
It is not fair that my doctor has to take my insurance payment
> (of 30% of his "billing") and the next guy has to pay the full amount (if
> he doesn't feel like bargaining).
I can't argue with that, particularly since one of my daughters has a
severe "pre-existing condition".
However, in my estimation "insurance" is the problem. I lived in this
country before the advent of "health insurance" being a necessary
component of health care.
I'm not saying that it was an ideal situation, but the current mix of
"insurance" and "personal responsibility", (and the responsibility that
the latter entails), is now skewed heavily to the former ... it is
painfully obvious to any intelligent observation that it is this state
of affairs that is at the root of our current "health care" crisis.
In short ... partisan politics, with lawyer politicians bought and paid
for by special interests, will NEVER result in a solution that is in
keeping with the principles of the founding of this country.
We have lost our way ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Han wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the
>> election
>> but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.
>
> Since when has bungling the economy, financial regulation, and war
> anything
> to do with skin color? You are against black people becoming involved in
> politics, or am I misunderstanding?
You are completely misunderstanding me. It is no secret that a great
number of people voted for the current president *because* of his skin color
and that his opponent was afraid to call him out on his past associations,
lack of record, and past statements for fear of being called racist. I
personally don't care what the color of a person's skin is, I want to know
what they stand for, their core beliefs, and their commitment to the country
they are wanting to lead. I'd vote for somebody like Walter E. Williams in
a heartbeat. Not because of his color, but because I know he loves this
country and recognized the exceptionalism that is possible by unleashing a
free people to pursue their own dreams and destiny with minimal interference
by government.
>
> For the record: not only the last previous administration is guilty on
> many fronts (although the worst happened during their term(s)), quite a
> number before were guilty too. And personal and corporate responsibility
> should include an enforcement mechanism.
>
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On 3/20/2010 4:07 PM, Han wrote:
> I absolutely disagree with the way Congress and lobbyists on all sides
> are approaching the problem of affordable healthcare. Politically,
> there is no leadership, just horse trading and posturing. But presumably
> this is the American way. I wish there was a better way.
Ayup ... will probably be that way until an educated citizenry realizes
the perils of allowing lawyers in the legislative branch.
Problem is with the words "educated" and "citizenry" as a phrase ...
it's a bit late for that.
> The train is soon leaving the station and I fervently hope that Congress
> can hook up cars to that train with something that in the long run will
> benefit the people in the US, whom they claim to represent.
You can't make a gumbo with ashes and bitter root, cher.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Douglas Johnson wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Even the most die-hard
>>supporter of socialized medicine ought to get the fact that Pelosi has
>>ripped up the Constitution and is making things up as she goes along.
>
> Exactly what part of the Constitution is being ripped up? Article I,
> Section 5
> says, in part "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,"
>
> I agree, this is an ugly process. But legislation often is. Remember the
> old
> saw about legislation and sausage. But it doesn't rip up the
> Constitution.
>
> -- Doug
You kind of missed the part that states that for a bill to become law, it
must be passed, "in identical form" by both houses of the legislature. That
would *not* be the case with the Demon Pass approach. i.e., the rule would
state that by passing the reconciliation measure, the nationalization of
health care would be "deemed" to have passed without the House actually
voting on it. The whole approach was to give cover to those voting for it
to say they had not voted for the bill, but for the reconciliation measure.
My fervent hope is that most American voters are smart enough to see through
that BS, but then given the results of the previous two elections, that may
be optimistic.
Yes, this process has been used before. However, not for such a
significant measure and in the past had some bipartisan support.
To be perfectly honest with yourself, what would you have thought if the
Bush administration and Republican congress had tried the same approach to
privatizing Social Security?
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/22/2010 8:45 PM, Dave In Texas wrote:
>>
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 3/22/2010 10:07 AM, Dave In Texas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>> Nobody is told "you must buy car insurance". They are told that _if_
>>>>> you have a car and _if_ you want to register it to be operated on
>>>>> public roads, _then_ you are required to have liability insurance.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't have a car or don't operate it on public roads then you
>>>>> are not required to have car insurance.
>>>>
>>>> So, if your major organs don't function then you won't be required to
>>>> have health insurance.
>>>
>>> And you have some kind of point here?
>>
>> The point is that the state of Texas mandates that I have/purchase
>> liability auto insurance if I want to drive on public roadways.
>
> And that has what do with "major organs don't function then you won't be
> required to have health insurance"?
>
> Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
I'm sorry; I thought your contention was that government doesn't force
you to buy auto insurance which you extrapolated into the notion that
government should [therefore] not force you to buy health insurance.
Dave in Houston
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It is no secret that a great number of people voted for the current
> president *because* of his skin color . . . .
How 'great' a number of people [do you think] voted against the current
president because of his skin color?
Inquiring minds . . . .
Dave in Houston
On 3/21/2010 2:03 PM, Robatoy wrote:
> earn so that they can be taxed/plundered. Same-ol'-same-old. And when
> the powers at the helm want to get bolder in their quest for rape/
> pillage/taxes, they also know they need to be careful that there
> aren't too many guns around as the serfs DO get pissed off.
"Politicians prefer unarmed peasants" ... an oldie, but goodie, bumper
sticker of yore.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
CW wrote:
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> d.williams wrote:
>>
>> In no case in which self-executing rules were used, was the rule ever
>> used
>> to pass a partisan, controversial pair of bills in which one of them
>> would be peeled off and sent to the president for signature and the
>> other, main resolution, sent to the Senate for reconciliation, debate,
>> and passage.
>> This is absolutely unprecedented and a travesty. Even the most die-hard
>> supporter of socialized medicine ought to get the fact that Pelosi has
>> ripped up the Constitution and is making things up as she goes along. To
>> use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy is
>> nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.
>>
> Considering the current administration, this surprises you?
No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the election
but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On 3/21/2010 7:35 PM, Han wrote:
> So "effectiveness studies" should give you better care (less side
> effects) and less costs. Your irrational fear of someone deciding for
> you what kind of care you are going to get has warped your mind. Do your
> research of what you think you need and have a good talk with someone you
> trust, then with your doctor. And, please, do write down your living
> will, advance directives or whatever you want to call them.
I don't mind giving you a personal, real life, less than 72 hours old,
example of the above.
Appointment at the VA for shoulder problem on this past Friday AM
(believe me, I _earned_ the VA medical care ("entitlement", if you
wish), the hard way!).
This was the third visit on this issue, taking four months to get this
far, each visit hopefully getting closer to an actual diagnoses, and
subsequent relief, based on something besides conjecture on the part of
the primary care physician, a GI specialist (but as long as I ask the
right questions, a competent health care professional).
Not enough doctors to go around in Orthopedics, so, after two and a half
hour wait, get a PA, (very accented English and hard to understand, but
very nice, attentive and obviously caring). PA ultimately makes
determination to give steroid injection in shoulder (step 5 of
apparently a 10 step procedure that must be followed, in order).
Relief is not as obvious as have been led to believe, so after a few
hours start doing some research on the expected efficacy of the
injection, with particular emphasis upon the site of the PA administered
injection, (posterior shoulder in this instance, with the main problem
exhibited on the anterior).
From a doctor friend: "A lateral injection is generally the preferred
site and best for the desired result. The posterior location is
considered the easiest place to administer the injection. It is the site
that requires the least amount of skill, and the site where it is
recommended for the unskilled to administer the procedure".
Light pops on ... basically, got a steroid injection (ouch!), in an area
of the shoulder least likely to benefit from the procedure, and by an
unskilled PA, with no doctor available.
Next possible appointment, and to then OK the escalation to the step 6 -
to see if an MRI is warranted: late July, 2010.
Don't get me wrong, this better than no care at all, but arguably
"second rate" by any medical yardstick.
That said, I accept the entirety of any blame because I failed to do my
homework beforehand. Had I done that, I could have asked the correct,
informed, questions and probably gotten a better result.
However, this anecdote is NOT partisan conjecture ... it is actual, day
before yesterday, "US government health care", in practice.
Moral: we should be damn careful what we wish for ...and, if you get
nothing else from this little anecdote, most definitely prepare yourself
to do MUCH more in managing your own health care when this bill passes.
... and it appears that it will pass.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
[email protected]:
> To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy
> is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.
You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already. Better to
get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or death and
exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this idea of everyone
for themselves AND let the other guy rot.
There ought to be a better way than democracy ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:49:48 -0700, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"Han" wrote:
>
>> The essence of what you say is probably correct. However, the
>> Repugni-ones
>> have completely lost the ball because here they had the opportunity
>> to come
>> up with really useful stuff, and all they can say is NO.
>>
>> The legislative process is horsetrading, and if you say NO you get
>> nothing.
>---------------------------------------
>
>I'm convinced the "Just Say NO" strategy of the Republican party is
>strictly racist based.
Are you kidding, Lew? If Colin Powell hadn't turned down the RNC,
he'd probably be our current president. He didn't want it, and I sure
as shit can't blame him. The offer was unprecedented, especially
because he was so liberal, not to mention black.
>Is a misguided attempt to disrupt the ability of the Obama
>administration to govern.
Please pay better attention, sir.
>(Remember J DeMint's comment?)
>
>These days, the Republicans might as well show up wearing their white
>sheets.
>
>It's too bad, the country needs two healthy political parties to
>provide the best government; however, the far right has hijacked the
>Republican party and rendered them less than functional,
Less function, agreed. I'm not with the Rabid Right. Are you with the
Rabid Left?
>thus stymieing the business of Congress.
No, _common sense_ stymied CONgress. What comes of Sunday's vote is
yet to be written in the history books, but I assure you it will be a
negative mark on the Demonrats.
>Hard as they have tried to defeat his agenda, they have gotten their
>collective ass kicked, while Obama, with a smile on his face, has
>scored as major victory.
Only in his mind. Wait until Friday, when the whole thing starts
really falling apart, lawsuits are fully engaged, etc. What The O and
the Demonrats are trying to do is ILLEGAL, all under the guise of
helping the poor. Typical powergrab bullshit from the Dems.
>Time to move on and fight the next battle.
From under their desks? <g>
--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler
"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US
>>> economy is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.
>>
>> You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already.
>> Better to get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or
>> death and exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this
>> idea of everyone for themselves AND let the other guy rot.
>
> I don't think people object to that, but man do object to how the
> government is going about it. Read the bill and get back to us. It
> needs some fixing.
I object to the shenanigans and horse trading at least as much as anyone.
I long for the days that (at least ostensibly) lawmakers could act in the
best interests of the country and ALL the people. But maybe that was in
the good old days, when there were no crooks, no diseases, and no
charlatans.
I'm getting old ...
--
Best regards
Han
Be charitable and fiscally conservative
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 3/20/2010 7:50 AM, Han wrote:
>> Mark& Juanita<[email protected]> wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US
>>> economy is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.
>>
>> You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already.
>> Better to get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or
>> death and exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this
>> idea of everyone for themselves AND let the other guy rot.
>>
>> There ought to be a better way than democracy ...
>
> There is, All you have to do is mumble the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE to
> yourself ... it's called a republic, set up specifically to keep the
> tyranny of the majority in check, but continually besieged since
> creation by those wanting to impose a social democracy.
>
> I respect your position, Han, but I will say this. My forefathers came
> here in 1780 _specifically_ to escape the tyranny of a European style
> government.
>
> Those who want to dismantle this system, which has protected European
> style democracies at great cost in the past, are still free to return
> to where they feel more comfortable.
>
> This is in NO way personal, strictly an observation on my part.
I think you and I agree completely on the governance issues, Karl! I am
all in favor of the ideals of the republic. I am against the tyranny of
the unwashed majority (my emphasis, by no means racial, but indicating a
lessening of respect to those who don't think).
In fact, here in Fair Lawn NJ, our Radburn community <http://radburn.org>
just was awarded by an appellate court decision that is too difficult to
get into here now, but which basically affirms that a non-profit
corporation which is governed by a benevolent sort of old-boys network is
perfectly legal, even when it sets rules and policies and sells land in
moves that a majority of /voting/ residents is against. And that is fine
with me, because the governing body of this National Historic Landmark
has always had the best interests of everyone here at heart.
What we might not agree on is whether national affordable compulsory
health insurance and some more regulation of the health industry are good
things. I have always been lucky with pretty good and affordable health
insurance coverage because of my employment over the years. But I have
also seen a colleague who was forced into COBRA and the expense that
entails. It is not fair that my doctor has to take my insurance payment
(of 30% of his "billing") and the next guy has to pay the full amount (if
he doesn't feel like bargaining).
Etc, etc.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 3/20/2010 11:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>> Try being self-employed for the past 40 years, then ask me if I give
>>> a rat's ass about COBRA. :)
>>
>> Oh, an independent's look at things. Let's start at the beginning. I
>> do have very good health insurance coverage through my employer. But
>> why? There is no real reason that any employer should, or must,
>> provide health care insurance to an employee.
>>
>> My employer does not provide me with a home, a car, my utilities, and
>> has never bought me a pair of shoes. Why then, after 30 or 90 days,
>> does he have to provide me with medical coverage? There are many ways
>> of getting group rates and if there were no such groups, we'd all be
>> in the same pool for the same rate anyway.
>
> Oh, let's really start "at the beginning":
>
> Health insurance, starting barely 50 years ago, has been provided to
> those employed by government and corporations as an additional form of
> "compensation" for employment.
>
> Health insurance has since been subverted from the category of
> "compensation", to one of "entitlement", and is fast approaching the
> status of a "right".
>
> Tell me we haven't "lost our way" with regard to the founding
> principles of this country when compensation for doing a job has
> insidiously become a "right".
>
> You preaching to the choir?
I'll skip the previous post, Karl. I agree with you and Ed.
My previous employers (officially Harvard and Cornell) touted their
fringe benefits as one of their attractions, and the health insurance was
the top of those. It has been good to me and my family (generally).
That made me lucky. It is not fair to you and yours that you could not
be a "member" of that same group. IMNSHO, that is segregation of the
worst kind.
I think that is why I really would like a system where:
a) preexisting conditions would not be counted against you. On the
other hand, I am a bit ambivalent whether self-inflicted risk factors
such as smoking should be a punishable offense. (Yes I am a reformed
former smoker).
b) everyone should have /compulsory/ access to a package of basic, or
catastrophic insurance. That should (IMNSHO) be fairly extensive, and
include birth control, pregnancy and birth etc, etc, but /perhaps/ not
dialysis and transplants. Payment of the premium should (again, IMNSHO)
be on some sort of scale commensurate with ability to pay.
c) added insurance for other risks should be available at reasonable
prices in a way (perhaps) that it would be more expensive as the insured
ages.
d) Genetic testing should be available to each individual, but insurance
companies are to be absolutely prohibited from using the information for
pricing purposes. However, they should be encouraged to cover things
such as (example) mastectomies for women at exceptinoal risk for
developing breast cancer. This is currently a testable risk, although
it is scary that it is based on statistics - these things cannot be
predicted for an individual with absolute certainty, just with some
statistical semblance of accuracy.
I absolutely disagree with the way Congress and lobbyists on all sides
are approaching the problem of affordable healthcare. Politically,
there is no leadership, just horse trading and posturing. But presumably
this is the American way. I wish there was a better way.
The train is soon leaving the station and I fervently hope that Congress
can hook up cars to that train with something that in the long run will
benefit the people in the US, whom they claim to represent.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> d.williams wrote:
>>
>> In no case in which self-executing rules were used, was the rule
>> ever
>> used
>> to pass a partisan, controversial pair of bills in which one of them
>> would be peeled off and sent to the president for signature and the
>> other, main resolution, sent to the Senate for reconciliation,
>> debate, and passage. This is absolutely unprecedented and a travesty.
>> Even the most die-hard supporter of socialized medicine ought to get
>> the fact that Pelosi has ripped up the Constitution and is making
>> things up as she goes along. To use this kind of trick to attempt to
>> take over 1/6 of the US economy is nothing short of stalinist and
>> dictatorial.
>>
> Considering the current administration, this surprises you?
The problem is that as knowledge increases, so do the costs, especially
if you want to remain at the cutting edge of healthcare possibilities.
The system in the US has made it just frigginf expensive to do the
research needed, and of course big pharma is out for profits. Doctors
too work hard (most of the ones I know do) and do want to get
compensated, as do the nurses, lab techs and housekeepers. And I don't
blame any but the most greedy ones of any of those groups.
The trick you refer to is as I seem to recall one that is long on the
books, and just now again dusted off to use to the majority's advantage.
Blame the founding fathers for not being more explicit.
I am much more concerned about misinformation being distributed. And I
am especially ticked off with the hypocrisy regarding abortion. I would
fervently hope that no one ever feels the need to have one, but if the
need arises (for whatever reason) it should be available, safe and
probably covered by insurance. I would rather have happy, wanted
children than beaten and abused children. You make your own decisions
and I will respect yours, whatever you decide. Same about end of life
care - your decision. Please write your living will NOW!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> (Yes I am a reformed
>> former smoker).
>>
> You are a former smoker that is now reformed. You do smoke then. :)
>
I see your smiley. I am Dutch, not Dutch Reformed. (Maybe you get it,
maybe not).
I smoked some 13 years, but stopped the second and last time in 1976.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 3/20/2010 10:51 PM, Phisherman wrote:
>> On 20 Mar 2010 12:50:18 GMT, Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark& Juanita<[email protected]> wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US
>>>> economy is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.
>>>
>>> You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already.
>>> Better to get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy
>>> and/or death and exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than
>>> this idea of everyone for themselves AND let the other guy rot.
>>>
>>> There ought to be a better way than democracy ...
>>
>>
>> It is sad to think this bill will force those who are uninsured to
>> become insured, whether they have a job or not. The IRS will police
>> the work of checking to make sure everyone buys medical coverage else
>> be fined like a criminal. This is not freedom, at all. This bill
>> is wrong.
>
> One wonders what the Supreme Court is going to say about a law that
> requires people to purchase a product as a condition of existence in
> the US.
>
> As for their "tax credits", what makes the blithering idiots think
> that people who are too poor to pay for insurance pay enough in taxes
> for the credits to make a difference.
People was too low income get money from your government for living. Why
should you have to pay for their health care at emergency room rates?
You are not advocating to just put the poor slobs out of their misery,
are you?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US
>>> economy is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.
>>
>> You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already.
>> Better to get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or
>> death and exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this
>> idea of everyone for themselves AND let the other guy rot.
>>
>
> ... granting for the moment, the 30 Million people uninsured number
> (it's
> not correct as it includes illegals and those who, by choice, are
> uninsured), how on earth does finding insurance for less than 10% of
> the US population justify nationalizing 1/6 of the economy, destroying
> a system with which most people are satisfied, and setting us on a
> road to inferior, rationed, health care as the program spending
> spirals out of control? Why does it take a 3000 page bill to insure
> 30 million people? This bill is not about health care, it is about
> complete, absolute control over peoples' lives. This is a bill that
> has "effectiveness panels" -- i.e., it's going to have people like
> those at the department of motor vehicles deciding what treatments are
> effective and affordable, and when you should "just take the pain
> pill". There are things in this bill that have nothing to do with
> health care -- at one time it was going to regulate food vending
> machines (don't know if that is still there or not).
>
>
>
>> There ought to be a better way than democracy ...
>>
>
> We don't have a democracy, we have a representative republic.
> However,
> that statement above is still truly frightening. i.e., you are
> willing to surrender your personal freedoms to someone who claims to
> know better than you what is in your best interests. You are free to
> feel that way, but if you do, go find a country that is governed that
> way and live there, don't try to force that enslavement on the rest of
> us.
I don't think you will ever get it, Mark & Juanita. You are now paying
for their healthcare at emergency room rates. Get them a living wage
job, and have them pay for their own health care.
Your idea that this bill is forcing people to do anything is absurd.
They'll get the choice of insurance and even no insurance. But since
someone needs to pay for emergency care, even if they don't, fine them if
they don't get some coverage. That is choice. And yes, I do believe
that people should pay taxes, and this is indeed another tax of sorts. I
would like individual responsibility, but "they" should not have to pay
triply inflated proces just because they don't work for Harvard
University or GM.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Mar 21, 12:52 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snipped the usual]
>
>>. You are free to feel that way, but if
>> you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there,
>> don't try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.
>>
>
> How about a country with a Patriot Act?
I feel fine living in this country with a sort of democratic representative
republic. (See other posts of mine referencing Radburn). What I object to
is the rabid reelection fever and crazed Pavlovian reactions to lobbyists.
And that all has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, Robatoy. I despise
some of the provisions there. Remember, in Holland you now have to carry
ID all the time since the EU reguulation of that aspect became effective,
and in the US you better have ID with you too. What about Kanuckistan,
Robatoy?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the
> election
> but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.
Since when has bungling the economy, financial regulation, and war anything
to do with skin color? You are against black people becoming involved in
politics, or am I misunderstanding?
For the record: not only the last previous administration is guilty on
many fronts (although the worst happened during their term(s)), quite a
number before were guilty too. And personal and corporate responsibility
should include an enforcement mechanism.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in news:CRrpn.119060
[email protected]:
> He's saying if they're in the 40% of folks who don't pay income taxes, a
> tax credit is worth zilch - so still not able to afford health insurance
> - unless it's done like the current "earned income" tax credit where you
> get a income tax refund even if you paid no income tax.
But of course that is the way it should be done, and I am pretty sure it is
something like that in the proposed bill.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> The patriot act isn't even close to the same sort of thing -- only
> those
> engaging in communication between known terrorist states and the US
> have any sort of concern with the Patriot act --i.e, this act wasn't
> set up to monitor your calls to Grandma in Illinois, but to facilitate
> the ability to catch Jihad Janet contacting AQ in Yemen before a
> building in Manhattan went up in smoke.
However, it was quite likely that the PA was going to be used to find out
a little more about some common Joe. Or didn't you hear about things
like well-known senators being pulled off planes because their name had
come up on some list? I am furiously in favor of terrorists or candiate
terrorists being watched, but we do NOT NEED another McCarthy era.
> This being pushed through now
> is designed to affect and impact the life of every man, woman, and
> child in this country, making them dependent upon the government for
> their health care.
Fallacy, private health care is what is being regulated. Including a
program by which the government will force insurance companies to accept
people who want insurance. Sort of like the assigned risk pool for car
insurance. Are you against people having compulsory car insurance too?
> World of difference between defending the republic from enemies
> foreign and domestic vs. setting up an unconstitutional power grab.
If this is unconstitutional, the SCOTUS will eventually issue an opinion.
That is guaranteed.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
> ... snip
>>
>> I don't think you will ever get it, Mark & Juanita. You are now
>> paying for their healthcare at emergency room rates. Get them a
>> living wage job, and have them pay for their own health care.
>>
>> Your idea that this bill is forcing people to do anything is absurd.
>> They'll get the choice of insurance and even no insurance. But since
>> someone needs to pay for emergency care, even if they don't, fine
>> them if they don't get some coverage. That is choice. And yes, I do
>> believe that people should pay taxes, and this is indeed another tax
>> of sorts. I would like individual responsibility, but "they" should
>> not have to pay triply inflated proces just because they don't work
>> for Harvard University or GM.
>>
>
> I don't think you are ever going to get this until it smacks you
> between
> the eyes in the future Han. If the only thing this bill did was
> provide means to prevent having indigent care performed through
> emergency rooms, the bill wouldn't need over 3000 pages (and that's
> not all of the bill, much of that 3000 pages is references to other
> federal laws that are amended, modified, or superseded by this
> abomination. There are elements of this bill that set up "health care
> effectiveness panels" -- in real people terms, these are panels that
> are going to decide, by bureaucratic fiat what constitutes
> cost-effective treatment and who gets that treatment. It contains
> language that dictates many elements of our lives having nothing
> directly to do with healthcare. As the costs mount (as they are going
> to do, it is ludicrous to think that a system for which taxes start
> now and benefits start 4 years later is going to result in next cost
> reductions after that first 10 years), those panels are also going
> decide how to ration that care and who the privileged classes will be
> that get the best care as well as dictating lifestyles based upon
> whatever the current health fad is to "keep people healthy for the
> good of the system". Given the current rhetoric, it's those nearing
> retirement age who are going to be considered expendable when the cost
> crunches come.
Right now care is being rationed in many ways that may not seem obvious
to you. One of the great things of current medical practice is that
rather objective studies are conducted that show, for instance, that a
water pill (hydrochlorothiazide) is just as good if not better than
expensive angiotensin receptor blockers (e.g. losartan, Cozaar) to
control blood pressure. Hctz costs me $3.18 for 90 days, Cozaar $60.
Unfortunately I seem to have to take both. Whether your doctor
prescribes one or the other or both is between you and him. But that is
prescribing practice.
So "effectiveness studies" should give you better care (less side
effects) and less costs. Your irrational fear of someone deciding for
you what kind of care you are going to get has warped your mind. Do your
research of what you think you need and have a good talk with someone you
trust, then with your doctor. And, please, do write down your living
will, advance directives or whatever you want to call them.
As I understand it, these bills/laws will tear down the privileged care
walls you are correctly afraid of. Right now, if you don't have money
and insurance (BOTH!!!) you are in danger of getting inferior medical
care. If your doctor and hospital don't have to figure out anymore how
to get the most money out of your illnesses, because the reimbursements
are much easier set, then you will get better care. Note: I am getting
weekly if not more frequently emails about how this or that insurance
company has changed the rules for this or that medication or procedure
(courtesy of the oncology division). More uniformity will be better for
most.
Some people might indeed fall through some crack. That is because much
as it is thought, medicine is NOT an exact science, and mistakes are
still being made. However, with the advent of better diagnostics and
electronic administration, that will improve more and more.
You are right, that these bills are overly complicated. Thank the
lawyers. They are the ones who made the HIPAA act into what it became.
Not the portability of health information that was the original intent,
but a multipage collection of gobbledygook that absolves anyone other
than yourself from making errors.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 21 Mar 2010 15:36:36 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the
>>> election
>>> but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.
>>
>>Since when has bungling the economy, financial regulation, and war
>>anything to do with skin color? You are against black people becoming
>>involved in politics, or am I misunderstanding?
>
> So, doubling down on the economy, financial regulations, and the war
> will make it better. The fact is that many did vote for Obama because
> he was black. More than voted against him because he was black.
>>
>>For the record: not only the last previous administration is guilty
>>on many fronts (although the worst happened during their term(s)),
>>quite a number before were guilty too. And personal and corporate
>>responsibility should include an enforcement mechanism.
>
> ...and things were so bad that we had to do even more of the same.
> Great logic there.
I am happy that we can't do the controlled experiment (go back in time
and try some other way to "cure" the Wall Street fiasco of 2008-9). I am
convinced (yes, it's personal) that the current way is better for most.
I wish we could just punish the b'tards that brought us to the brink, but
I don't think that would help little Joe and Susie any better than this.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
>> On Mar 21, 5:03Â pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Larry Jaques" wrote:
>>> > What is your definition of a living wage, Han? Â Does it differ by
>>> > local, or does one wage fit all, for singles, couples, and couples
>>> > with ten children? Should I pay triple wages for a family man when
>>> > the
>>> > single guy is probably in better shape and can do more work for my
>>> > pay?
>>>
>>> > The vast majority of people I have seen in emergency rooms around
>>> > the
>>> > West since 1966 have been non-English speaking Hispanics. What you
>>> > are
>>> > suggesting is illegal (hiring people who aren't supposed to be in
>>> > the
>>> > country in the first place) and naive (thinking that they would
>>> > purchase insurance even if they could.) Â The same goes for the
>>> > poor, who also go to the emergency wards
>>>
>>> -----------------------------
>>> Spoken like a true bigot.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>
>> No, Lew... THIS is spoken like a true, but ever so carefully guarded,
>> bigot:
>>
>>>> Mark & Juanita
>>
>>>> No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the
>>>> election
>>>>but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.
>
> I've explained this in more detail to Han's comment. However, the
> only
> bigotry in the above statement was pointing out that many people in
> this country voted for the current disaster we have in the white house
> purely and solely because he *is* black. Those are the true bigots
> and racists, those who only look at a person's outward appearance and
> make decisions based upon that. Because of those racists and bigots
> who voted either because "he looked like them" or out of some feeling
> of racial penance, we now have a narcissistic demagogue in the White
> House. I could care less what his color is, I'm only concerned that
> it was patently obvious that beneath that external appearance he is
> red to the core and sees it as his duty to remake the country that he
> hates in its present form to, at best, a European style socialized
> democracy.
>
> Your accusation of racism is beyond the pale.
If blacks voting for the first time would have voted for any white man,
it surely would have been a miracle. What happened was getting people
committed to the process. Now the overall disillusionment is that more
radical things are not happening.
I do believe that you are not a racist, but some of your statements are
too easily interpreted as racism. Better take care of the way you say
things ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 3/21/2010 7:35 PM, Han wrote:
>
>> So "effectiveness studies" should give you better care (less side
>> effects) and less costs. Your irrational fear of someone deciding
>> for you what kind of care you are going to get has warped your mind.
>> Do your research of what you think you need and have a good talk with
>> someone you trust, then with your doctor. And, please, do write down
>> your living will, advance directives or whatever you want to call
>> them.
>
> I don't mind giving you a personal, real life, less than 72 hours old,
> example of the above.
>
> Appointment at the VA for shoulder problem on this past Friday AM
> (believe me, I _earned_ the VA medical care ("entitlement", if you
> wish), the hard way!).
>
> This was the third visit on this issue, taking four months to get this
> far, each visit hopefully getting closer to an actual diagnoses, and
> subsequent relief, based on something besides conjecture on the part
> of the primary care physician, a GI specialist (but as long as I ask
> the right questions, a competent health care professional).
>
> Not enough doctors to go around in Orthopedics, so, after two and a
> half hour wait, get a PA, (very accented English and hard to
> understand, but very nice, attentive and obviously caring). PA
> ultimately makes determination to give steroid injection in shoulder
> (step 5 of apparently a 10 step procedure that must be followed, in
> order).
>
> Relief is not as obvious as have been led to believe, so after a few
> hours start doing some research on the expected efficacy of the
> injection, with particular emphasis upon the site of the PA
> administered injection, (posterior shoulder in this instance, with the
> main problem exhibited on the anterior).
>
> From a doctor friend: "A lateral injection is generally the preferred
> site and best for the desired result. The posterior location is
> considered the easiest place to administer the injection. It is the
> site that requires the least amount of skill, and the site where it is
> recommended for the unskilled to administer the procedure".
>
> Light pops on ... basically, got a steroid injection (ouch!), in an
> area of the shoulder least likely to benefit from the procedure, and
> by an unskilled PA, with no doctor available.
>
> Next possible appointment, and to then OK the escalation to the step 6
> - to see if an MRI is warranted: late July, 2010.
>
> Don't get me wrong, this better than no care at all, but arguably
> "second rate" by any medical yardstick.
>
> That said, I accept the entirety of any blame because I failed to do
> my homework beforehand. Had I done that, I could have asked the
> correct, informed, questions and probably gotten a better result.
>
> However, this anecdote is NOT partisan conjecture ... it is actual,
> day before yesterday, "US government health care", in practice.
>
> Moral: we should be damn careful what we wish for ...and, if you get
> nothing else from this little anecdote, most definitely prepare
> yourself to do MUCH more in managing your own health care when this
> bill passes.
>
> ... and it appears that it will pass.
As LDosser, I have a comparable story, but far less severe than either of
you. Pains in shoulder radiating down to hand. Turned out that I have
some osteoarthritis in neck vertebrae. Exercise helps, but all the tests
to get there! Including something the name of which I forget, whereby
needles administered electric shocks to find out whether there was
something wrong with the nerves in my arm. My problem was made worse by
my posture sitting at a keyboard almost all day.
I hope your daughter gets the right care soon, what is the current
diagnosis?
As for you, Karl, have you tried asking the patient advocate for
assistance? I know someone like that should exist since I see all the
placards in the Manhattan VA. In addition, without diagnosing your
problem, could physical therapy help with mobility, and therefore help
you have less pain? (In the Manhattan VA I ran into a {bleeped} PT tech,
so I had no help there).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
<snip>
Sorry you feel that way. See my corollary with car insurance.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> So you think it's a good idea to continue the policies that got us
> here in the first place, trebled? <boggle>
The policies that got us here were lack of regulation, and glorifying and
rewarding greed. In reverse order.
The problem is how to fix it without causing more harm than is already
done. And indeed, evenyually our grandchildren will pay the price.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
The essence of what you say is probably correct. However, the Repugni-ones
have completely lost the ball because here they had the opportunity to come
up with really useful stuff, and all they can say is NO.
The legislative process is horsetrading, and if you say NO you get nothing.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Dave In Texas" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4fUpn.113707$Up1.102185@en-
nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com:
> The point is that the state of Texas mandates that I have/purchase
> liability auto insurance if I want to drive on public roadways.
SO if you want to live you should buy health insurance. Life insurance is
for when you die ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Testing electric conduction. They were going to put me through that
> hoop until the neuro-surgeon got a look at the MRI and called me at
> home. Just about had a heart attack getting a call from a physician at
> home. :o()
I would advice against undergoing this test. It is painful. Don't take
the test unless there is absolutely no other cause for the pain you have,
and it is determined beforehand with great certainty that the test will
indeed demonstrate that nerve conduction problems are the cause of the
pain.
I get calls from my urologist at home all the time. He is always happy to
say there was no problem found. Or he is asking how I feel after the
procedure. SO far so good :)
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ... I'm going to balance my check book.
>
> By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have therefore
> been paid in perpetuity.
>
> Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...
>
> --
A "deeming resolution" is perhaps a scuzzy, gutless approach to legislation.
So it shouldn't be surprising that the Republicans used it 36 times in 2005
qnd 2006 when they controlled the House, and Democrats used it 49 times in
2007 and 2008. It's interesting that now, when it concerns a very high
profile piece of legislation. it's painted as a new "unconstitutional"
flaunting of the rules. As if any of them had any regard for rules and
fairness in the first place, there's an agenda in Congress, and it ain't
aimed at doing what's best for me and you.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 3/17/2010 7:13 PM, Zz Yzx wrote:
>>
>>> It's sausage, no matter how we grind it.
>>
>> It ain't sausage, but it looks like it ...
>
> Ohhhh! Good one!
>
> I'm gonna call Limbaugh tomorrow with that (unless you beat me to it).
I think he's house hunting in Costa Rica.
Dave in Houston
Han wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
> [email protected]:
>
>> To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy
>> is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.
>
> You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already. Better to
> get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or death and
> exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this idea of everyone
> for themselves AND let the other guy rot.
>
... granting for the moment, the 30 Million people uninsured number (it's
not correct as it includes illegals and those who, by choice, are
uninsured), how on earth does finding insurance for less than 10% of the US
population justify nationalizing 1/6 of the economy, destroying a system
with which most people are satisfied, and setting us on a road to inferior,
rationed, health care as the program spending spirals out of control? Why
does it take a 3000 page bill to insure 30 million people? This bill is not
about health care, it is about complete, absolute control over peoples'
lives. This is a bill that has "effectiveness panels" -- i.e., it's going
to have people like those at the department of motor vehicles deciding what
treatments are effective and affordable, and when you should "just take the
pain pill". There are things in this bill that have nothing to do with
health care -- at one time it was going to regulate food vending machines
(don't know if that is still there or not).
> There ought to be a better way than democracy ...
>
We don't have a democracy, we have a representative republic. However,
that statement above is still truly frightening. i.e., you are willing to
surrender your personal freedoms to someone who claims to know better than
you what is in your best interests. You are free to feel that way, but if
you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there, don't
try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Mar 17, 1:00=A0pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... I'm going to balance my check book.
>
> By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have therefore
> been paid in perpetuity.
>
> Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
I believe your creditors will spoil your belief next month.
Joe G
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Try being self-employed for the past 40 years, then ask me if I give a
> rat's ass about COBRA. :)
Oh, an independent's look at things. Let's start at the beginning. I do
have very good health insurance coverage through my employer. But why?
There is no real reason that any employer should, or must, provide health
care insurance to an employee.
My employer does not provide me with a home, a car, my utilities, and has
never bought me a pair of shoes. Why then, after 30 or 90 days, does he
have to provide me with medical coverage? There are many ways of getting
group rates and if there were no such groups, we'd all be in the same pool
for the same rate anyway.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nobody is told "you must buy car insurance". They are told that _if_ you
> have a car and _if_ you want to register it to be operated on public
> roads, _then_ you are required to have liability insurance.
>
> If you don't have a car or don't operate it on public roads then you are
> not required to have car insurance.
So, if your major organs don't function then you won't be required to
have health insurance.
My grandfather who died in 1973 at the age of 90 was the only person
I've ever known who never owned or drove a motor vehicle of any kind.
Dave in Houston
On Mar 21, 12:52=A0am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped the usual]
>. =A0You are free to feel that way, but if
> you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there, don't
> try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.
>
How about a country with a Patriot Act?
On 3/20/2010 11:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> Try being self-employed for the past 40 years, then ask me if I give a
>> rat's ass about COBRA. :)
>
> Oh, an independent's look at things. Let's start at the beginning. I do
> have very good health insurance coverage through my employer. But why?
> There is no real reason that any employer should, or must, provide
> health care insurance to an employee.
>
> My employer does not provide me with a home, a car, my utilities, and
> has never bought me a pair of shoes. Why then, after 30 or 90 days, does
> he have to provide me with medical coverage? There are many ways of
> getting group rates and if there were no such groups, we'd all be in the
> same pool for the same rate anyway.
Oh, let's really start "at the beginning":
Health insurance, starting barely 50 years ago, has been provided to
those employed by government and corporations as an additional form of
"compensation" for employment.
Health insurance has since been subverted from the category of
"compensation", to one of "entitlement", and is fast approaching the
status of a "right".
Tell me we haven't "lost our way" with regard to the founding principles
of this country when compensation for doing a job has insidiously become
a "right".
You preaching to the choir?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:33:41 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:26:04 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>On Mar 21, 12:52 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[snipped the usual]
>>>
>>>>. You are free to feel that way, but if
>>>> you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there,
>>>> don't
>>>> try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.
>>>
>>>How about a country with a Patriot Act?
>>
>> ...who doesn't press for the removal of some 20 million KNOWN illegal
>> aliens or for the protection of our borders. Uckingfay Insaneyay.
>> The act isnt about security, it's about POWER, plain and simple.
>
>All the act does is legalize what has been going on for decades.
While it may do that, it also VASTLY increases the power of the
departments affected (and newly created.) Big Brother is here.
--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler
Swingman wrote:
> ... I'm going to balance my check book.
>
> By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have therefore
> been paid in perpetuity.
>
> Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...
>
INTERNET WARNING:
If you get an email titled "Nude photo of Nancy Pelosi,"
don't open it.... It contains a nude photo of Nancy Pelosi.
On 3/17/10 3:39 PM, Norvin wrote:
> INTERNET WARNING:
>
> If you get an email titled "Nude photo of Nancy Pelosi," don't open
> it.... It contains a nude photo of Nancy Pelosi.
>
Literally, LOL. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:16:26 +0000, Han wrote:
> The trick you refer to is as I seem to recall one that is long on the
> books, and just now again dusted off to use to the majority's advantage.
> Blame the founding fathers for not being more explicit.
Yep. From what I've read, both parties have used that trick, and both
scream foul when the other party uses it.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On 3/20/2010 10:51 PM, Phisherman wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2010 12:50:18 GMT, Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mark& Juanita<[email protected]> wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>> To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy
>>> is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.
>>
>> You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already. Better to
>> get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or death and
>> exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this idea of everyone
>> for themselves AND let the other guy rot.
>>
>> There ought to be a better way than democracy ...
>
>
> It is sad to think this bill will force those who are uninsured to
> become insured, whether they have a job or not. The IRS will police
> the work of checking to make sure everyone buys medical coverage else
> be fined like a criminal. This is not freedom, at all. This bill
> is wrong.
One wonders what the Supreme Court is going to say about a law that
requires people to purchase a product as a condition of existence in the US.
As for their "tax credits", what makes the blithering idiots think that
people who are too poor to pay for insurance pay enough in taxes for the
credits to make a difference.
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:52:09 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> ... granting for the moment, the 30 Million people uninsured number
> (it's
> not correct as it includes illegals and those who, by choice, are
> uninsured),
Wrong! See:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/
how on earth does finding insurance for less than 10% of the
> US population justify nationalizing 1/6 of the economy,
Nationalizing? Last time I looked, the "public option" was dead.
destroying a
> system with which most people are satisfied,
Oh, yeah? The polls show 40 some percent for, 40 some percent against
the total bill. When the individual parts are polled, support is well in
the majority.
and setting us on a road to
> inferior, rationed, health care as the program spending spirals out of
> control?
Rationed? See the above reference. Spiraling spending? According to
the non-partisan CBO, the bill will save money.
Why does it take a 3000 page bill to insure 30 million people?
> This bill is not about health care, it is about complete, absolute
> control over peoples' lives.
Watch out for those black helicopters!
And speaking of that "public option", the US is the *only* industrialized
country where people can go broke paying medical bills. Every other such
country provides some sort of health care guarantees, whether private,
public, or a mix. But you, and folks like you, keep repeating "Everyone
is out of step but me."
If you'd care to see how those countries, and even some of the
"developing" countries handle health care, look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
But I doubt you care, you'd rather just keep on blathering falsehoods and
exaggerations.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
"Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:26:04 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>>On Mar 21, 12:52 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[snipped the usual]
>>
>>>. You are free to feel that way, but if
>>> you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there,
>>> don't
>>> try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.
>>
>>How about a country with a Patriot Act?
>
> ...who doesn't press for the removal of some 20 million KNOWN illegal
> aliens or for the protection of our borders. Uckingfay Insaneyay.
> The act isnt about security, it's about POWER, plain and simple.
All the act does is legalize what has been going on for decades.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/21/2010 7:35 PM, Han wrote:
>
>> So "effectiveness studies" should give you better care (less side
>> effects) and less costs. Your irrational fear of someone deciding for
>> you what kind of care you are going to get has warped your mind. Do your
>> research of what you think you need and have a good talk with someone you
>> trust, then with your doctor. And, please, do write down your living
>> will, advance directives or whatever you want to call them.
>
> I don't mind giving you a personal, real life, less than 72 hours old,
> example of the above.
>
> Appointment at the VA for shoulder problem on this past Friday AM (believe
> me, I _earned_ the VA medical care ("entitlement", if you wish), the hard
> way!).
>
> This was the third visit on this issue, taking four months to get this
> far, each visit hopefully getting closer to an actual diagnoses, and
> subsequent relief, based on something besides conjecture on the part of
> the primary care physician, a GI specialist (but as long as I ask the
> right questions, a competent health care professional).
>
> Not enough doctors to go around in Orthopedics, so, after two and a half
> hour wait, get a PA, (very accented English and hard to understand, but
> very nice, attentive and obviously caring). PA ultimately makes
> determination to give steroid injection in shoulder (step 5 of apparently
> a 10 step procedure that must be followed, in order).
>
> Relief is not as obvious as have been led to believe, so after a few hours
> start doing some research on the expected efficacy of the injection, with
> particular emphasis upon the site of the PA administered injection,
> (posterior shoulder in this instance, with the main problem exhibited on
> the anterior).
>
> From a doctor friend: "A lateral injection is generally the preferred site
> and best for the desired result. The posterior location is considered the
> easiest place to administer the injection. It is the site that requires
> the least amount of skill, and the site where it is recommended for the
> unskilled to administer the procedure".
>
> Light pops on ... basically, got a steroid injection (ouch!), in an area
> of the shoulder least likely to benefit from the procedure, and by an
> unskilled PA, with no doctor available.
>
> Next possible appointment, and to then OK the escalation to the step 6 -
> to see if an MRI is warranted: late July, 2010.
>
> Don't get me wrong, this better than no care at all, but arguably "second
> rate" by any medical yardstick.
>
> That said, I accept the entirety of any blame because I failed to do my
> homework beforehand. Had I done that, I could have asked the correct,
> informed, questions and probably gotten a better result.
>
> However, this anecdote is NOT partisan conjecture ... it is actual, day
> before yesterday, "US government health care", in practice.
>
> Moral: we should be damn careful what we wish for ...and, if you get
> nothing else from this little anecdote, most definitely prepare yourself
> to do MUCH more in managing your own health care when this bill passes.
You need to do that regardless.
I have a story similar to yours playing out over 42 months. Difference being
civilian treatment: steroid injection of lumbar spine, progressing to spinal
stenosis and surgery for fusion of lumbar vertebrae, progressing to
continued issues and an MRI of the cervical spine showing stenosis that was
Obviously there prior to the first surgery, progressing to fusion of
cervical vertabrae. ALL choreographed by The Insurance Company who
determined the allowability of the MRIs, and the initial Useless steroid
injection. Had I thought about it, I could have Faked symptoms to get the
MRI of my neck at the same time as the lumbar area and may have had both
surgeries sooner. And, of course, all the screwing around left damage ...
Not that I'm a fan of the idiotic bill being voted on as we speak.
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 21 Mar 2010 15:36:36 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the
>>>> election
>>>> but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.
>>>
>>>Since when has bungling the economy, financial regulation, and war
>>>anything to do with skin color? You are against black people becoming
>>>involved in politics, or am I misunderstanding?
>>
>> So, doubling down on the economy, financial regulations, and the war
>> will make it better. The fact is that many did vote for Obama because
>> he was black. More than voted against him because he was black.
>>>
>>>For the record: not only the last previous administration is guilty
>>>on many fronts (although the worst happened during their term(s)),
>>>quite a number before were guilty too. And personal and corporate
>>>responsibility should include an enforcement mechanism.
>>
>> ...and things were so bad that we had to do even more of the same.
>> Great logic there.
>
> I am happy that we can't do the controlled experiment (go back in time
> and try some other way to "cure" the Wall Street fiasco of 2008-9). I am
> convinced (yes, it's personal) that the current way is better for most.
> I wish we could just punish the b'tards that brought us to the brink, but
> I don't think that would help little Joe and Susie any better than this.
Well, the good news is somebody beat the crap out of Bernie Madoff in jail.
Seems he owed the guy money ...
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3/21/2010 8:27 PM, LDosser wrote:
>> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 3/21/2010 7:35 PM, Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> So "effectiveness studies" should give you better care (less side
>>>> effects) and less costs. Your irrational fear of someone deciding for
>>>> you what kind of care you are going to get has warped your mind. Do
>>>> your
>>>> research of what you think you need and have a good talk with someone
>>>> you
>>>> trust, then with your doctor. And, please, do write down your living
>>>> will, advance directives or whatever you want to call them.
>>>
>>> I don't mind giving you a personal, real life, less than 72 hours old,
>>> example of the above.
>>>
>>> Appointment at the VA for shoulder problem on this past Friday AM
>>> (believe me, I _earned_ the VA medical care ("entitlement", if you
>>> wish), the hard way!).
>>>
>>> This was the third visit on this issue, taking four months to get this
>>> far, each visit hopefully getting closer to an actual diagnoses, and
>>> subsequent relief, based on something besides conjecture on the part
>>> of the primary care physician, a GI specialist (but as long as I ask
>>> the right questions, a competent health care professional).
>>>
>>> Not enough doctors to go around in Orthopedics, so, after two and a
>>> half hour wait, get a PA, (very accented English and hard to
>>> understand, but very nice, attentive and obviously caring). PA
>>> ultimately makes determination to give steroid injection in shoulder
>>> (step 5 of apparently a 10 step procedure that must be followed, in
>>> order).
>>>
>>> Relief is not as obvious as have been led to believe, so after a few
>>> hours start doing some research on the expected efficacy of the
>>> injection, with particular emphasis upon the site of the PA
>>> administered injection, (posterior shoulder in this instance, with the
>>> main problem exhibited on the anterior).
>>>
>>> From a doctor friend: "A lateral injection is generally the preferred
>>> site and best for the desired result. The posterior location is
>>> considered the easiest place to administer the injection. It is the
>>> site that requires the least amount of skill, and the site where it is
>>> recommended for the unskilled to administer the procedure".
>>>
>>> Light pops on ... basically, got a steroid injection (ouch!), in an
>>> area of the shoulder least likely to benefit from the procedure, and
>>> by an unskilled PA, with no doctor available.
>>>
>>> Next possible appointment, and to then OK the escalation to the step 6
>>> - to see if an MRI is warranted: late July, 2010.
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong, this better than no care at all, but arguably
>>> "second rate" by any medical yardstick.
>>>
>>> That said, I accept the entirety of any blame because I failed to do
>>> my homework beforehand. Had I done that, I could have asked the
>>> correct, informed, questions and probably gotten a better result.
>>>
>>> However, this anecdote is NOT partisan conjecture ... it is actual,
>>> day before yesterday, "US government health care", in practice.
>>>
>>> Moral: we should be damn careful what we wish for ...and, if you get
>>> nothing else from this little anecdote, most definitely prepare
>>> yourself to do MUCH more in managing your own health care when this
>>> bill passes.
>>
>> You need to do that regardless.
>>
>> I have a story similar to yours playing out over 42 months. Difference
>> being civilian treatment: steroid injection of lumbar spine, progressing
>> to spinal stenosis and surgery for fusion of lumbar vertebrae,
>> progressing to continued issues and an MRI of the cervical spine showing
>> stenosis that was Obviously there prior to the first surgery,
>> progressing to fusion of cervical vertabrae. ALL choreographed by The
>> Insurance Company who determined the allowability of the MRIs, and the
>> initial Useless steroid injection. Had I thought about it, I could have
>> Faked symptoms to get the MRI of my neck at the same time as the lumbar
>> area and may have had both surgeries sooner. And, of course, all the
>> screwing around left damage ...
>>
>> Not that I'm a fan of the idiotic bill being voted on as we speak.
>
> My little complaint pales in comparison
No medical complaint pales.
> ... sorry to hear that. Going though similar insurance dance with youngest
> daughter's bid to not go blind ... tough choices, but it could be 1900
> with NO choices.
Well, the medicine is better ... Hopefully your daughter will benefit from
the improvements in medicine.
On 3/21/2010 11:21 AM, Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 3/20/2010 10:51 PM, Phisherman wrote:
>>> On 20 Mar 2010 12:50:18 GMT, Han<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark& Juanita<[email protected]> wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
>>>> [email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US
>>>>> economy is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.
>>>>
>>>> You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already.
>>>> Better to get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy
>>>> and/or death and exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than
>>>> this idea of everyone for themselves AND let the other guy rot.
>>>>
>>>> There ought to be a better way than democracy ...
>>>
>>>
>>> It is sad to think this bill will force those who are uninsured to
>>> become insured, whether they have a job or not. The IRS will police
>>> the work of checking to make sure everyone buys medical coverage else
>>> be fined like a criminal. This is not freedom, at all. This bill
>>> is wrong.
>>
>> One wonders what the Supreme Court is going to say about a law that
>> requires people to purchase a product as a condition of existence in
>> the US.
>>
>> As for their "tax credits", what makes the blithering idiots think
>> that people who are too poor to pay for insurance pay enough in taxes
>> for the credits to make a difference.
>
> People was too low income get money from your government for living. Why
> should you have to pay for their health care at emergency room rates?
>
> You are not advocating to just put the poor slobs out of their misery,
> are you?
People poor enough to get money from the government for living also get
government-provided medical treatment already. But there is a gap
between that level and the level at which one can afford to pay
thousands of dollars a year for insurance. And in that gap income tax
is not so high that tax credits will make any kind of dent in the cost
of the insurance.
On 3/21/2010 11:28 AM, Han wrote:
> Mark& Juanita<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>> Mark& Juanita<[email protected]> wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
>>> [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US
>>>> economy is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.
>>>
>>> You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already.
>>> Better to get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or
>>> death and exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this
>>> idea of everyone for themselves AND let the other guy rot.
>>>
>>
>> ... granting for the moment, the 30 Million people uninsured number
>> (it's
>> not correct as it includes illegals and those who, by choice, are
>> uninsured), how on earth does finding insurance for less than 10% of
>> the US population justify nationalizing 1/6 of the economy, destroying
>> a system with which most people are satisfied, and setting us on a
>> road to inferior, rationed, health care as the program spending
>> spirals out of control? Why does it take a 3000 page bill to insure
>> 30 million people? This bill is not about health care, it is about
>> complete, absolute control over peoples' lives. This is a bill that
>> has "effectiveness panels" -- i.e., it's going to have people like
>> those at the department of motor vehicles deciding what treatments are
>> effective and affordable, and when you should "just take the pain
>> pill". There are things in this bill that have nothing to do with
>> health care -- at one time it was going to regulate food vending
>> machines (don't know if that is still there or not).
>>
>>
>>
>>> There ought to be a better way than democracy ...
>>>
>>
>> We don't have a democracy, we have a representative republic.
>> However,
>> that statement above is still truly frightening. i.e., you are
>> willing to surrender your personal freedoms to someone who claims to
>> know better than you what is in your best interests. You are free to
>> feel that way, but if you do, go find a country that is governed that
>> way and live there, don't try to force that enslavement on the rest of
>> us.
>
> I don't think you will ever get it, Mark& Juanita. You are now paying
> for their healthcare at emergency room rates. Get them a living wage
> job, and have them pay for their own health care.
>
> Your idea that this bill is forcing people to do anything is absurd.
So what do you believe that legislation that says "buy insurance or pay
a fine" is intended to accomplish if it is not to force people to
purchase insurance?
> They'll get the choice of insurance and even no insurance.
Well, we all have the choice of obeying or violating the law, however
the only way under the bill before the Congress that one will be able to
opt for "no insurance" is to be willing to commit an unlawful act.
> But since
> someone needs to pay for emergency care, even if they don't, fine them if
> they don't get some coverage.
I see. So being ordered to do something under pain of confiscation of
your personal property is not "forcing".
> That is choice.
Yes, the choice of obeying or being a criminal.
> And yes, I do believe
> that people should pay taxes, and this is indeed another tax of sorts.
No, it isn't a tax. When the government says "buy this product or else"
it is not a "tax". How would you like if it they said "buy a car or
else" or "buy a television or else" or "buy Windows or else"? The
principle is the same.
> I
> would like individual responsibility, but "they" should not have to pay
> triply inflated proces just because they don't work for Harvard
> University or GM.
Who is this "they"?
On 3/21/2010 12:44 PM, Han wrote:
> Doug Winterburn<[email protected]> wrote in news:CRrpn.119060
> [email protected]:
>
>> He's saying if they're in the 40% of folks who don't pay income taxes, a
>> tax credit is worth zilch - so still not able to afford health insurance
>> - unless it's done like the current "earned income" tax credit where you
>> get a income tax refund even if you paid no income tax.
>
> But of course that is the way it should be done, and I am pretty sure it is
> something like that in the proposed bill.
The text of the bill can be found at
<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590eas.txt.pdf>.
Do find the clause which provides such payments. There is a complex
scheme where insurance companies are supposed to find out the income
levels of their customers and provide the poorest ones discounts but I
can't find anything about the government making payments to anyone.
>
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LDosser wrote:
>
>> "Larry Jaques" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:26:04 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
>>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>>
>>>>On Mar 21, 12:52 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>[snipped the usual]
>>>>
>>>>>. You are free to feel that way, but if
>>>>> you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there,
>>>>> don't
>>>>> try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.
>>>>
>>>>How about a country with a Patriot Act?
>>>
>>> ...who doesn't press for the removal of some 20 million KNOWN illegal
>>> aliens or for the protection of our borders. Uckingfay Insaneyay.
>>> The act isnt about security, it's about POWER, plain and simple.
>>
>> All the act does is legalize what has been going on for decades.
>
> ... and makes them voters. And for whom do you think those votes will
> fall? There is a method to the Dem's madness and it is going to destroy
> the
> country.
The Patriot Act?
"Dave In Texas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Dave In Texas wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> It is no secret that a great number of people voted for the current
>>>> president *because* of his skin color . . . .
>>>
>>> How 'great' a number of people [do you think] voted against the
>>> current
>>> president because of his skin color?
>>> Inquiring minds . . . .
>>>
>>
>> There may have been a few, but as a personal opinion, not many.
>
> I could have predicted that response.
>>
>> OTOH, do you really believe that the 96% black vote that he garnered was
>> *not* based upon racism?
>
> He's a Democrat; Any Democrat would have gotten 96% of the black vote.
Did Gore? I don't think even Clinton got that much.
On 3/22/2010 6:55 AM, Han wrote:
> "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> <snip>
>
> Sorry you feel that way. See my corollary with car insurance.
I do not see your "corollary with car insurance" anywhere, however
people keep trotting this out and it is crap.
Nobody is told "you must buy car insurance". They are told that _if_
you have a car and _if_ you want to register it to be operated on public
roads, _then_ you are required to have liability insurance.
If you don't have a car or don't operate it on public roads then you are
not required to have car insurance.
On 3/22/2010 10:07 AM, Dave In Texas wrote:
>
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Nobody is told "you must buy car insurance". They are told that _if_
>> you have a car and _if_ you want to register it to be operated on
>> public roads, _then_ you are required to have liability insurance.
>>
>> If you don't have a car or don't operate it on public roads then you
>> are not required to have car insurance.
>
> So, if your major organs don't function then you won't be required to
> have health insurance.
And you have some kind of point here?
> My grandfather who died in 1973 at the age of 90 was the only person
> I've ever known who never owned or drove a motor vehicle of any kind.
Well if car insurance was handled like this law handles medical
insurance then he'd still have had to buy car insurance.
The fact that your circle of friends all own cars doesn't mean squat.
If you lived in Manhattan instead of Houston you would have had a
different experience. Or parts of Pennsylvania or Ohio. And none of
them were told by the government "buy a car or we'll fine you the price
of a car".
On 3/22/2010 8:45 PM, Dave In Texas wrote:
>
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 3/22/2010 10:07 AM, Dave In Texas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> Nobody is told "you must buy car insurance". They are told that _if_
>>>> you have a car and _if_ you want to register it to be operated on
>>>> public roads, _then_ you are required to have liability insurance.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't have a car or don't operate it on public roads then you
>>>> are not required to have car insurance.
>>>
>>> So, if your major organs don't function then you won't be required to
>>> have health insurance.
>>
>> And you have some kind of point here?
>
> The point is that the state of Texas mandates that I have/purchase
> liability auto insurance if I want to drive on public roadways.
And that has what do with "major organs don't function then you won't be
required to have health insurance"?
Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 3/21/2010 7:35 PM, Han wrote:
>>
>>> So "effectiveness studies" should give you better care (less side
>>> effects) and less costs. Your irrational fear of someone deciding
>>> for you what kind of care you are going to get has warped your mind.
>>> Do your research of what you think you need and have a good talk with
>>> someone you trust, then with your doctor. And, please, do write down
>>> your living will, advance directives or whatever you want to call
>>> them.
>>
>> I don't mind giving you a personal, real life, less than 72 hours old,
>> example of the above.
>>
>> Appointment at the VA for shoulder problem on this past Friday AM
>> (believe me, I _earned_ the VA medical care ("entitlement", if you
>> wish), the hard way!).
>>
>> This was the third visit on this issue, taking four months to get this
>> far, each visit hopefully getting closer to an actual diagnoses, and
>> subsequent relief, based on something besides conjecture on the part
>> of the primary care physician, a GI specialist (but as long as I ask
>> the right questions, a competent health care professional).
>>
>> Not enough doctors to go around in Orthopedics, so, after two and a
>> half hour wait, get a PA, (very accented English and hard to
>> understand, but very nice, attentive and obviously caring). PA
>> ultimately makes determination to give steroid injection in shoulder
>> (step 5 of apparently a 10 step procedure that must be followed, in
>> order).
>>
>> Relief is not as obvious as have been led to believe, so after a few
>> hours start doing some research on the expected efficacy of the
>> injection, with particular emphasis upon the site of the PA
>> administered injection, (posterior shoulder in this instance, with the
>> main problem exhibited on the anterior).
>>
>> From a doctor friend: "A lateral injection is generally the preferred
>> site and best for the desired result. The posterior location is
>> considered the easiest place to administer the injection. It is the
>> site that requires the least amount of skill, and the site where it is
>> recommended for the unskilled to administer the procedure".
>>
>> Light pops on ... basically, got a steroid injection (ouch!), in an
>> area of the shoulder least likely to benefit from the procedure, and
>> by an unskilled PA, with no doctor available.
>>
>> Next possible appointment, and to then OK the escalation to the step 6
>> - to see if an MRI is warranted: late July, 2010.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, this better than no care at all, but arguably
>> "second rate" by any medical yardstick.
>>
>> That said, I accept the entirety of any blame because I failed to do
>> my homework beforehand. Had I done that, I could have asked the
>> correct, informed, questions and probably gotten a better result.
>>
>> However, this anecdote is NOT partisan conjecture ... it is actual,
>> day before yesterday, "US government health care", in practice.
>>
>> Moral: we should be damn careful what we wish for ...and, if you get
>> nothing else from this little anecdote, most definitely prepare
>> yourself to do MUCH more in managing your own health care when this
>> bill passes.
>>
>> ... and it appears that it will pass.
>
> As LDosser, I have a comparable story, but far less severe than either of
> you. Pains in shoulder radiating down to hand. Turned out that I have
> some osteoarthritis in neck vertebrae. Exercise helps, but all the tests
> to get there! Including something the name of which I forget, whereby
> needles administered electric shocks to find out whether there was
> something wrong with the nerves in my arm. My problem was made worse by
> my posture sitting at a keyboard almost all day.
Testing electric conduction. They were going to put me through that hoop
until the neuro-surgeon got a look at the MRI and called me at home. Just
about had a heart attack getting a call from a physician at home. :o()
On 3/23/2010 12:27 AM, Dave In Texas wrote:
>
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 3/22/2010 8:45 PM, Dave In Texas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 3/22/2010 10:07 AM, Dave In Texas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody is told "you must buy car insurance". They are told that _if_
>>>>>> you have a car and _if_ you want to register it to be operated on
>>>>>> public roads, _then_ you are required to have liability insurance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't have a car or don't operate it on public roads then you
>>>>>> are not required to have car insurance.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if your major organs don't function then you won't be required to
>>>>> have health insurance.
>>>>
>>>> And you have some kind of point here?
>>>
>>> The point is that the state of Texas mandates that I have/purchase
>>> liability auto insurance if I want to drive on public roadways.
>>
>> And that has what do with "major organs don't function then you won't
>> be required to have health insurance"?
>>
>> Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
>
> I'm sorry; I thought your contention was that government doesn't force
> you to buy auto insurance which you extrapolated into the notion that
> government should [therefore] not force you to buy health insurance.
So you're saying what, that the government can withdraw your privilege
to use your major organs if you don't pay for insurance?
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:41:42 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
> Nobody is told "you must buy car insurance". They are told that _if_
> you have a car and _if_ you want to register it to be operated on public
> roads, _then_ you are required to have liability insurance.
>
> If you don't have a car or don't operate it on public roads then you are
> not required to have car insurance.
No, but no mechanic is forced to fix your car for free. Hospitals must
provide at least some care to people who can't pay.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
My news server was down yesterday so I had to copy krw'S post from
Google. Unfortunately, that caused the loss of one level of >, so I
indented my responses below. Sorry 'bout that.
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:24:28 -0500
Local: Sun, Mar 21 2010 4:24 pm
Subject: Re: OT - When I get home tonight ...
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:52:09 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> how on earth does finding insurance for less than 10% of the
>> US population justify nationalizing 1/6 of the economy,
>Nationalizing? Last time I looked, the "public option" was dead.
You're delusional if you don't think that is the end game. Controlling
insurance is the same thing with a different name.
Maybe so, maybe no. But you're crying before you're hurt. And
compared to what we have today, some version of universal health
care would be a great improvement.
> destroying a
>> system with which most people are satisfied,
>Oh, yeah? The polls show 40 some percent for, 40 some percent against
>the total bill. When the individual parts are polled, support is well in
>the majority.
When asked the right question, sure.
So when multiple polls show support for something that you
disagree with, the poll must be biased? Yeah, right.
> and setting us on a road to
>> inferior, rationed, health care as the program spending spirals out of
>> control?
>Rationed? See the above reference. Spiraling spending? According to
>the non-partisan CBO, the bill will save money.
Complete nonsense. Have you looked into the assumptions the CBO was
REQUIRED
to figure in? ...including the estimates for the "recovery" and the $.5T
write-down of seniors?
Once again, the CBO is deemed non partisan only if it agrees
with you. Of course, in your defense, you're not the only one
who does that - lots of folks in this group are uilty.
> Why does it take a 3000 page bill to insure 30 million people?
>> This bill is not about health care, it is about complete, absolute
>> control over peoples' lives.
>Watch out for those black helicopters!
No, you'd better watch out for Congress. They've already stolen your
brain. Your wallet is next (but you likely won't miss it).
LOL
>And speaking of that "public option", the US is the *only* industrialized
>country where people can go broke paying medical bills. Every other such
>country provides some sort of health care guarantees, whether private,
>public, or a mix. But you, and folks like you, keep repeating "Everyone
>is out of step but me."
Japan?
For some strange reason, Japan wasn't included on the web page
referenced below. But it does have universal health care, in
fact it's system is considered among the best. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system_in_Japan
>If you'd care to see how those countries, and even some of the
>"developing" countries handle health care, look at:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
>But I doubt you care, you'd rather just keep on blathering falsehoods and
>exaggerations.
No falsehoods or exaggerations at all. We're broke and your children are
will be underwater for life.
I definitely agree with you that we're broke. But it was 8 years
of Shrub that got us there.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
GROVER wrote:
> On Mar 17, 1:00 pm, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ... I'm going to balance my check book.
>>
>> By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have
>> therefore been paid in perpetuity.
>>
>> Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...
>>
>> --www.e-woodshop.net
>> Last update: 10/22/08
>> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
> I believe your creditors will spoil your belief next month.
> Joe G
And the voters next November.
On 22 Mar 2010 00:41:11 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 21 Mar 2010 15:36:36 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the
>>>> election
>>>> but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.
>>>
>>>Since when has bungling the economy, financial regulation, and war
>>>anything to do with skin color? You are against black people becoming
>>>involved in politics, or am I misunderstanding?
>>
>> So, doubling down on the economy, financial regulations, and the war
>> will make it better. The fact is that many did vote for Obama because
>> he was black. More than voted against him because he was black.
>>>
>>>For the record: not only the last previous administration is guilty
>>>on many fronts (although the worst happened during their term(s)),
>>>quite a number before were guilty too. And personal and corporate
>>>responsibility should include an enforcement mechanism.
>>
>> ...and things were so bad that we had to do even more of the same.
>> Great logic there.
>
>I am happy that we can't do the controlled experiment (go back in time
>and try some other way to "cure" the Wall Street fiasco of 2008-9). I am
>convinced (yes, it's personal) that the current way is better for most.
>I wish we could just punish the b'tards that brought us to the brink, but
>I don't think that would help little Joe and Susie any better than this.
So you think it's a good idea to continue the policies that got us here in the
first place, trebled? <boggle>
On 3/20/2010 7:50 AM, Han wrote:
> Mark& Juanita<[email protected]> wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
> [email protected]:
>
>> To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy
>> is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.
>
> You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already. Better to
> get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or death and
> exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this idea of everyone
> for themselves AND let the other guy rot.
>
> There ought to be a better way than democracy ...
There is, All you have to do is mumble the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE to
yourself ... it's called a republic, set up specifically to keep the
tyranny of the majority in check, but continually besieged since
creation by those wanting to impose a social democracy.
I respect your position, Han, but I will say this. My forefathers came
here in 1780 _specifically_ to escape the tyranny of a European style
government.
Those who want to dismantle this system, which has protected European
style democracies at great cost in the past, are still free to return to
where they feel more comfortable.
This is in NO way personal, strictly an observation on my part.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Even the most die-hard
>supporter of socialized medicine ought to get the fact that Pelosi has
>ripped up the Constitution and is making things up as she goes along.
Exactly what part of the Constitution is being ripped up? Article I, Section 5
says, in part "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,"
I agree, this is an ugly process. But legislation often is. Remember the old
saw about legislation and sausage. But it doesn't rip up the Constitution.
-- Doug
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> You kind of missed the part that states that for a bill to become law, it
>must be passed, "in identical form" by both houses of the legislature. That
>would *not* be the case with the Demon Pass approach. i.e., the rule would
>state that by passing the reconciliation measure, the nationalization of
>health care would be "deemed" to have passed without the House actually
>voting on it.
OK, I get it. That one is a little too subtle for me. It probably depends on
the exact wording of the rule and resolution, which I haven't read and probably
wouldn't be able to interpret.
>The whole approach was to give cover to those voting for it
>to say they had not voted for the bill, but for the reconciliation measure.
>My fervent hope is that most American voters are smart enough to see through
>that BS, but then given the results of the previous two elections, that may
>be optimistic.
Yeah. It all seemed kind of silly to me. Any opponent in the fall is going to
say "They voted for/against health care" regardless of the technique used.
Anyway, it appears that the House has dropped that silliness. Within a few
hours they are going to vote a straight up/down on the Senate bill, then the
amendments.
> To be perfectly honest with yourself, what would you have thought if the
>Bush administration and Republican congress had tried the same approach to
>privatizing Social Security?
It's silly no matter who is doing it.
-- Doug
Norvin wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> ... I'm going to balance my check book.
>>
>> By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have therefore
>> been paid in perpetuity.
>>
>> Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...
>>
>
>
>
> INTERNET WARNING:
>
> If you get an email titled "Nude photo of Nancy Pelosi,"
> don't open it.... It contains a nude photo of Nancy Pelosi.
AAAGH! Brain Bleach! Where's the Brain Bleach? That is a mental image with
which I cannot deal.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On 22 Mar 2010 10:53:17 GMT, the infamous Han <[email protected]>
scrawled the following:
>As LDosser, I have a comparable story, but far less severe than either of
>you. Pains in shoulder radiating down to hand. Turned out that I have
>some osteoarthritis in neck vertebrae. Exercise helps, but all the tests
>to get there! Including something the name of which I forget, whereby
>needles administered electric shocks to find out whether there was
>something wrong with the nerves in my arm. My problem was made worse by
>my posture sitting at a keyboard almost all day.
Han, I had some temporary pins and needles radiating down the back of
my arm to my wrist and hand. I got a used copy of _Gray's Anatomy_
and discussed my condition with a masseuse. (Massage and chiropractic
are my only medical choices when possible.) I tracked it to poor
posture and tight neck muscles. Look into the TheraCane. I merely
took a rubber cup and put it on the curved section of a wooden cane
and use it to do acupressure on the levator scapulae and infraspinatus
muscles, as well as the trapezius and rhomboid on the right. When
those got tight enough, pain radiated.
5 minutes of self-massage with the cane (and/or a minute or two of
stretching) takes my pain away immediately, whenever it comes back.
And it's all Free! (misdiagnosis free, wasted time free, and drug
free)
--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:19:08 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:52:09 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>
>> ... granting for the moment, the 30 Million people uninsured number
>> (it's
>> not correct as it includes illegals and those who, by choice, are
>> uninsured),
>
>Wrong! See:
>
>http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/
>
>
> how on earth does finding insurance for less than 10% of the
>> US population justify nationalizing 1/6 of the economy,
>
>Nationalizing? Last time I looked, the "public option" was dead.
You're delusional if you don't think that is the end game. Controlling
insurance is the same thing with a different name.
> destroying a
>> system with which most people are satisfied,
>
>Oh, yeah? The polls show 40 some percent for, 40 some percent against
>the total bill. When the individual parts are polled, support is well in
>the majority.
When asked the right question, sure.
>
> and setting us on a road to
>> inferior, rationed, health care as the program spending spirals out of
>> control?
>Rationed? See the above reference. Spiraling spending? According to
>the non-partisan CBO, the bill will save money.
Complete nonsense. Have you looked into the assumptions the CBO was REQUIRED
to figure in? ...including the estimates for the "recovery" and the $.5T
write-down of seniors?
> Why does it take a 3000 page bill to insure 30 million people?
>> This bill is not about health care, it is about complete, absolute
>> control over peoples' lives.
>
>Watch out for those black helicopters!
No, you'd better watch out for Congress. They've already stolen your brain.
Your wallet is next (but you likely won't miss it).
>And speaking of that "public option", the US is the *only* industrialized
>country where people can go broke paying medical bills. Every other such
>country provides some sort of health care guarantees, whether private,
>public, or a mix. But you, and folks like you, keep repeating "Everyone
>is out of step but me."
Japan?
>If you'd care to see how those countries, and even some of the
>"developing" countries handle health care, look at:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
>
>But I doubt you care, you'd rather just keep on blathering falsehoods and
>exaggerations.
No falsehoods or exaggerations at all. We're broke and your children are will
be underwater for life.
J. Clarke wrote:
> On 3/22/2010 6:55 AM, Han wrote:
>> "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Sorry you feel that way. See my corollary with car insurance.
>
> I do not see your "corollary with car insurance" anywhere, however
> people keep trotting this out and it is crap.
>
> Nobody is told "you must buy car insurance". They are told that _if_
> you have a car and _if_ you want to register it to be operated on public
> roads, _then_ you are required to have liability insurance.
>
> If you don't have a car or don't operate it on public roads then you are
> not required to have car insurance.
>
...and it isn't the federal government that requires it anyway, it's the
individual states as it should be according to the tenth amendment of
the US constitution.
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>He's saying if they're in the 40% of folks who don't pay income taxes, a
>tax credit is worth zilch - so still not able to afford health insurance
>- unless it's done like the current "earned income" tax credit where you
>get a income tax refund even if you paid no income tax.
Some tax credits are refundable. That means they will send you a check for the
credit even if you don't pay any income taxes. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_credit
-- Doug
"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> (Yes I am a reformed
> former smoker).
>
You are a former smoker that is now reformed. You do smoke then. :)
On 3/17/2010 6:09 PM, d.williams wrote:
> "Swingman"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> ... I'm going to balance my check book.
>>
>> By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have therefore
>> been paid in perpetuity.
>>
>> Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...
>>
>> --
> A "deeming resolution" is perhaps a scuzzy, gutless approach to legislation.
> So it shouldn't be surprising that the Republicans used it 36 times in 2005
> qnd 2006 when they controlled the House, and Democrats used it 49 times in
> 2007 and 2008. It's interesting that now, when it concerns a very high
> profile piece of legislation. it's painted as a new "unconstitutional"
> flaunting of the rules. As if any of them had any regard for rules and
> fairness in the first place, there's an agenda in Congress, and it ain't
> aimed at doing what's best for me and you.
You're preaching to choir ... but that's not a bad thing.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
Robatoy wrote:
> On Mar 21, 11:32Â am, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote
>> innews:[email protected]:
>>
>> > On Mar 21, 12:52Â am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > [snipped the usual]
>>
>> >>. Â You are free to feel that way, but if
>> >> you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there,
>> >> don't try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.
>>
>> > How about a country with a Patriot Act?
>>
>> I feel fine living in this country with a sort of democratic
>> representative republic. Â (See other posts of mine referencing Radburn).
>> What I object to is the rabid reelection fever and crazed Pavlovian
>> reactions to lobbyists.
>>
>> And that all has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, Robatoy. Â I despise
>> some of the provisions there. Â Remember, in Holland you now have to carry
>> ID all the time since the EU reguulation of that aspect became effective,
>> and in the US you better have ID with you too. Â What about Kanuckistan,
>> Robatoy?
>>
>
> I raised the Patriot Act as an obvious example of a republican double
> standard when they describe health reform as a loss of freedom. From
> where I am sitting, either party is nothing but a collective of power
> hungry scumbags driven by the lobbyists/special interest groups. And
> no matter who the president is, he's influenced by way too many
> rasputins like Dick Cheney or Rahm Emanuel. That Emanuel is one shady
> sunnuvabitch.
>
The patriot act isn't even close to the same sort of thing -- only those
engaging in communication between known terrorist states and the US have any
sort of concern with the Patriot act --i.e, this act wasn't set up to
monitor your calls to Grandma in Illinois, but to facilitate the ability to
catch Jihad Janet contacting AQ in Yemen before a building in Manhattan went
up in smoke. This being pushed through now is designed to affect and impact
the life of every man, woman, and child in this country, making them
dependent upon the government for their health care.
World of difference between defending the republic from enemies foreign
and domestic vs. setting up an unconstitutional power grab.
... snip
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
d.williams wrote:
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> ... I'm going to balance my check book.
>>
>> By virtue of that process I will "deem" that all my bills have therefore
>> been paid in perpetuity.
>>
>> Hell, if it works for Nancy, et al ...
>>
>> --
> A "deeming resolution" is perhaps a scuzzy, gutless approach to
> legislation.
> So it shouldn't be surprising that the Republicans used it 36 times in
> 2005 qnd 2006 when they controlled the House, and Democrats used it 49
> times in 2007 and 2008. It's interesting that now, when it concerns a very
> high profile piece of legislation. it's painted as a new
> "unconstitutional" flaunting of the rules. As if any of them had any
> regard for rules and fairness in the first place, there's an agenda in
> Congress, and it ain't aimed at doing what's best for me and you.
In no case in which self-executing rules were used, was the rule ever used
to pass a partisan, controversial pair of bills in which one of them would
be peeled off and sent to the president for signature and the other, main
resolution, sent to the Senate for reconciliation, debate, and passage.
This is absolutely unprecedented and a travesty. Even the most die-hard
supporter of socialized medicine ought to get the fact that Pelosi has
ripped up the Constitution and is making things up as she goes along. To
use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy is
nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:26:04 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Mar 21, 12:52 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>[snipped the usual]
>
>>. You are free to feel that way, but if
>> you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there, don't
>> try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.
>
>How about a country with a Patriot Act?
...who doesn't press for the removal of some 20 million KNOWN illegal
aliens or for the protection of our borders. Uckingfay Insaneyay.
The act isnt about security, it's about POWER, plain and simple.
--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:03:54 -0700, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>"Larry Jaques" wrote:
>
>> What is your definition of a living wage, Han? Does it differ by
>> local, or does one wage fit all, for singles, couples, and couples
>> with ten children? Should I pay triple wages for a family man when
>> the
>> single guy is probably in better shape and can do more work for my
>> pay?
>>
>> The vast majority of people I have seen in emergency rooms around
>> the
>> West since 1966 have been non-English speaking Hispanics. What you
>> are
>> suggesting is illegal (hiring people who aren't supposed to be in
>> the
>> country in the first place) and naive (thinking that they would
>> purchase insurance even if they could.) The same goes for the poor,
>> who also go to the emergency wards
>-----------------------------
>Spoken like a true bigot.
I just knew _some_ idiot would think that. <sigh> KMA, H.
--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:31:11 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>On Mar 21, 5:03 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Larry Jaques" wrote:
>> > What is your definition of a living wage, Han? Does it differ by
>> > local, or does one wage fit all, for singles, couples, and couples
>> > with ten children? Should I pay triple wages for a family man when
>> > the
>> > single guy is probably in better shape and can do more work for my
>> > pay?
>>
>> > The vast majority of people I have seen in emergency rooms around
>> > the
>> > West since 1966 have been non-English speaking Hispanics. What you
>> > are
>> > suggesting is illegal (hiring people who aren't supposed to be in
>> > the
>> > country in the first place) and naive (thinking that they would
>> > purchase insurance even if they could.) The same goes for the poor,
>> > who also go to the emergency wards
>>
>> -----------------------------
>> Spoken like a true bigot.
>>
>> Lew
>
>No, Lew... THIS is spoken like a true, but ever so carefully guarded,
>bigot:
>
>>> Mark & Juanita
>
>>> No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the election
>>>but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.
Bullshit to both of you.
Mark was saying (IMHO) that the id^H^Hgood folks who voted for Obama
were so blinded by his race/color, and the historical moment it would
be to elect him, that they failed to see what kind of extraordinarily
ineffectual liberal (self-censored) he truly was. If you thought
Shrub was bad, wait and see what kind of ruination happens to our
country in the _next_ 3 years.
Nix the PC blinders and/or buy a clue, guys. We don't care what color
some bozo is. We just care that he's a bozo.
Nexxxxt!
--
Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
-- Oprah Winfrey