My 92 yr old dad had angioplasty this morn so I went to see him
afterwards. Mom and several sisters described what took place. He
had two arteries 98% clogged. I have for years wished they could
remove the stuff clogging the arteries in addition to using the
stent. My mom and sibs told me that they actually did this. I was
surprised and said I thought this could not be done due to the danger
of the "debris" causing a stroke. Apparently, the device whirls at
very high rpm and cuts it into such tiny pieces it causes no problem.
Doc said this could not be done 5 yrs ago. So, my 92 yr old dad now
has a heart that is prob better than mine. WOW.
Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs. My dad has pvt health ins, VA and medicare with his pvt
care paying most of it. Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

On Sep 2, 11:28*pm, Frogwatch wrote:

Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs.

uh...why not? that's like sayin govt run military programs have no
incentive to develop deadlier weapons. the fact is, they do.

you're just an ignorant right winger who thinks the cliches the rich
have been telling you are gospel truth. guess you haven't been paying
attention to the economy for the last year

Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

and private care has led the US to the worst, most expensie heatlh
care in the western world.

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 03:11:17 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 2, 11:28*pm, Frogwatch wrote:

Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs.

uh...why not? that's like sayin govt run military programs have no
incentive to develop deadlier weapons. the fact is, they do.

you're just an ignorant right winger who thinks the cliches the rich
have been telling you are gospel truth. guess you haven't been paying
attention to the economy for the last year

Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

and private care has led the US to the worst, most expensie heatlh
care in the western world.


Who develops military weapons?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Sep 3, 9:17*am, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 03:11:17 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Sep 2, 11:28*pm, Frogwatch wrote:

Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs.

uh...why not? that's like sayin govt run military programs have no
incentive to develop deadlier weapons. the fact is, they do.

you're just an ignorant right winger who thinks the cliches the rich
have been telling you are gospel truth. guess you haven't been paying
attention to the economy for the last year

Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

and private care has led the US to the worst, most expensie heatlh
care in the western world.

Who develops military weapons?


companies responding to a customer: the US military

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 03:11:17 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 2, 11:28 pm, Frogwatch wrote:

Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs.

uh...why not? that's like sayin govt run military programs have no
incentive to develop deadlier weapons. the fact is, they do.

you're just an ignorant right winger who thinks the cliches the rich
have been telling you are gospel truth. guess you haven't been paying
attention to the economy for the last year

Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

and private care has led the US to the worst, most expensie heatlh
care in the western world.


Who develops military weapons?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Private enterprises, who either contract with the government before or after
the fact.

On Sep 3, 10:04*am, "Lu Powell" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 03:11:17 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 2, 11:28 pm, Frogwatch wrote:

Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs.

uh...why not? that's like sayin govt run military programs have no
incentive to develop deadlier weapons. the fact is, they do.

you're just an ignorant right winger who thinks the cliches the rich
have been telling you are gospel truth. guess you haven't been paying
attention to the economy for the last year

Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

and private care has led the US to the worst, most expensie heatlh
care in the western world.

Who develops military weapons?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Private enterprises, who either contract with the government before or after
the fact.

Govt develops better weapons as a matter of life and death for
itself. They have no incentive to develop better heart procedures for
92 yr old guys. They would think that regular bypass technology is ok
and see no reason to spend good money for anything else. History has
shown this to be true. When the state tries to duplicate what
capitalism does, it fails. The Soviet Union never developed much for
consumers and was always behind the USA, same for China and all other
state run economies. Without capitalism, my father would be dead.
Consider ALL of the things that make your life easier, they were
developed by pvt enterprise. Yes, the first IC chips were made for
Titan missile guidance systems but TI would not have even done that if
they did not see the possibility of developing consumer electronics.
Research and development is insanely expensive and the only reason to
do it is the potential for profit. I am working on a new type of
mammography system but without a profit motive, I would not even
consider it because the cost would be too high/unit for me to even pay
for the R&D or to even pay salaries. However, when you consider the
number of mammography units (roughly 10,000 in the USA) and the
projected selling price of the part we develop to the system maker
(roughly $30,000), you get big amounts of money, enough to make
development feasible. IS my technology necessary? NO, existing tech
works but does it slowly and delivers much more radiation than
necessary. Thus, profit is the driving motivation.

On Sep 3, 10:04*am, "Lu Powell" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 03:11:17 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 2, 11:28 pm, Frogwatch wrote:

Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs.

uh...why not? that's like sayin govt run military programs have no
incentive to develop deadlier weapons. the fact is, they do.

you're just an ignorant right winger who thinks the cliches the rich
have been telling you are gospel truth. guess you haven't been paying
attention to the economy for the last year

Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

and private care has led the US to the worst, most expensie heatlh
care in the western world.

Who develops military weapons?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Private enterprises, who either contract with the government before or after
the fact.-

rather odd in that the USSR had a formidable military machine...

On Sep 3, 10:21*am, Frogwatch wrote:
On Sep 3, 10:04*am, "Lu Powell" wrote:





wrote in message

.. .

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 03:11:17 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 2, 11:28 pm, Frogwatch wrote:

Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs.

uh...why not? that's like sayin govt run military programs have no
incentive to develop deadlier weapons. the fact is, they do.

you're just an ignorant right winger who thinks the cliches the rich
have been telling you are gospel truth. guess you haven't been paying
attention to the economy for the last year

Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

and private care has led the US to the worst, most expensie heatlh
care in the western world.

Who develops military weapons?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Private enterprises, who either contract with the government before or after
the fact.

Govt develops better weapons as a matter of life and death for
itself. *They have no incentive to develop better heart procedures for
92 yr old guys. *They would think that regular bypass technology is ok
and see no reason to spend good money for anything else. *History has
shown this to be true. *When the state tries to duplicate what
capitalism does, it fails.

hey froggie...guess what

ever hear of 1929? 2009? capitalism fails, too. it's failed to provide
a stable retirement income for american workers. it's failed to
provide cost of living increases, failed to provide affordable health
care...

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:17:47 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 3, 10:04*am, "Lu Powell" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 03:11:17 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 2, 11:28 pm, Frogwatch wrote:

Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs.

uh...why not? that's like sayin govt run military programs have no
incentive to develop deadlier weapons. the fact is, they do.

you're just an ignorant right winger who thinks the cliches the rich
have been telling you are gospel truth. guess you haven't been paying
attention to the economy for the last year

Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

and private care has led the US to the worst, most expensie heatlh
care in the western world.

Who develops military weapons?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Private enterprises, who either contract with the government before or after
the fact.-

rather odd in that the USSR had a formidable military machine...

Formidable? The military machine that was defeated in Afghanistan?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Sep 3, 11:19*am, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 3, 10:21*am, Frogwatch wrote:



On Sep 3, 10:04*am, "Lu Powell" wrote:

wrote in message

.. .

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 03:11:17 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 2, 11:28 pm, Frogwatch wrote:

Govt run health care would have no incentive to develop such a thing
in 5 yrs.

uh...why not? that's like sayin govt run military programs have no
incentive to develop deadlier weapons. the fact is, they do.

you're just an ignorant right winger who thinks the cliches the rich
have been telling you are gospel truth. guess you haven't been paying
attention to the economy for the last year

Govt health care would simply say, "92 yrs
old, no reason to do much" but his mind is in perfect shape and I
expect he'll have 10 more years.

and private care has led the US to the worst, most expensie heatlh
care in the western world.

Who develops military weapons?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Private enterprises, who either contract with the government before or after
the fact.

Govt develops better weapons as a matter of life and death for
itself. *They have no incentive to develop better heart procedures for
92 yr old guys. *They would think that regular bypass technology is ok
and see no reason to spend good money for anything else. *History has
shown this to be true. *When the state tries to duplicate what
capitalism does, it fails.

hey froggie...guess what

ever hear of 1929? 2009? capitalism fails, too. it's failed to provide
a stable retirement income for american workers. it's failed to
provide cost of living increases, failed to provide affordable health
care...

As I said, govts provide good military for their own survival. I am
no advocate of libertarianism, it would not work. We need govt
regulations to dampen economic oscillations that would result in
"economic poles" (monopolies, depressions etc.) I believe that it is
up to workers to provide their own retirement, SS is just a safety net
to prevent starvation. Your failure to plan for the future is YOUR
problem.
I believe that routine health care should NOT be covered by any
insurance so that people will know what thye are really paying. An
HMO for routine care is simply pre-paid routine health care and tax
deductible medical savings accounts should cover that. To prevent HMO
from skewing the prices of routine health care, maybe "insurance" for
routine health care should be illegal. EVERYBODY should have
inexpensive catastrophic health insurance.
Govt should provide a safety net system that is inconvenient to use.
It should be inconvenient so that people will not rely on it instead
of pvt.
The idea is to preserve what is good about private health care while
providing a safety net that people will not always use.