"Loogypicker" wrote in message
...
On Dec 26, 4:21 pm, Jim wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
On 26/12/2009 12:47 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
"John wrote in message
news On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:44:40 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:56:19 -0500, John
wrote:

However,
I believe you should have the choice.

What choice? Dying with dignity or being kept alive, with
extraordinary means, in a persistent vegetative state? Indefinitely?

And, there's always the chance
that the extra little amount of medical care would add another ten
fruitful years to your life.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Let's recap, per
your
link:

".... has earned a reputation as a place where doctors will go to
virtually any length and expense to try to save a patient's life. "

This sounds great until you have to admit that an insurance policy
isn't an unlimited blank check. Sooner or later, whoever is "the deep
pockets" is going to start "rationing health care." But let's get
real
and evaluate the next sentence.....

"If you come into this hospital, we're not going to let you die...."

Holy Crap, what incredible impertinence! That is just NOT their
decision. But wait, if you are in a persistent vegetative state, and
they keep your heart beating by extraordinary means..... uh..... you
haven't "died" yet..... right?

At least not until the money runs out and they have to start
rationing...... trust me.... there is NO FREE LUNCH.... and this has
NOTHING to do with humanitarian feelings toward you.... this is a
cold, hard, business decision.....

You missed this:

"Take the case of Salah Putrus, who at age 71 had a long history of
heart failure.

After repeated visits to his local hospital near Burbank, Calif., Mr.
Putrus was referred to U.C.L.A. this year to be evaluated for a heart
transplant.

Some other medical centers might have considered Mr. Putrus too old
for the surgery. But U.C.L.A.'s attitude was "let's see what we can do
for him," said his physician there, Dr. Tamara Horwich.

Indeed, Mr. Putrus recalled, Dr. Horwich and her colleagues "did every
test." They changed his medicines to reduce the amount of water he was
retaining. They even removed some teeth that could be a potential
source of infection.

His condition improved so much that more than six months later, Mr.
Putrus has remained out of the hospital and is no longer considered in
active need of a transplant. "
--

John H

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill

Hell of a difference between 71 and 85 or 90 years old. A 94 year old
with
congestive heart failure and you are going to spend a 100k or so to
prolong
life a month?

So who gets to play god?

I am sure your health care would be cheaper if you were to sign a
binding orrevokable document that says you will never require an
operation over $100K and they are under no obligation to provided it.
You cannot sue, whine, bitch, contemplate or whatever when your term is
up. This is irrevocable in your lifetime.

Don't worry, Americans just subscribed to this. Read up on how
government saves on health care. Old farts looking for a free lunch,
guess what, you might find you are too old to qualify for the by-pass or
whatever....

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf

A lot of truth under this title:

Rationing : �Everything is Free but Nothing is Readily Available�
(Frogue et al, 2001)

obama has not yet appointed a god czar. We are anxioully awaiting his
choice.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, Ronnie Raygun had a clairavoyant czar so why in hell not?

Mrs. Raygun had the czar, not ronnie.

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

Hell of a difference between 71 and 85 or 90 years old. A 94 year old
with
congestive heart failure and you are going to spend a 100k or so to
prolong
life a month?

If the 85 or 90 year old has the money in their hand let them spend it.

My wife's grandfather demanded that his doctor put in a pacemaker when
he was 82. About a year later the damn thing kept him alive in a near
vegetative state for another 5 years. Every time his heart said it was
time to stop beating the pacemaker kicked in and kept him living.

None of us are going to live forever and the sooner you realize that the
sooner you can make rational and informed plans. And, you can always
change your plans as technology advances as you age.

And who paid for his care in a vegetative state?

"Loogypicker" wrote in message
...
On Dec 26, 2:47 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

news




On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:44:40 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:56:19 -0500, John H
wrote:

However,
I believe you should have the choice.

What choice? Dying with dignity or being kept alive, with
extraordinary means, in a persistent vegetative state? Indefinitely?

And, there's always the chance
that the extra little amount of medical care would add another ten
fruitful years to your life.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Let's recap, per your
link:

".... has earned a reputation as a place where doctors will go to
virtually any length and expense to try to save a patient's life. "

This sounds great until you have to admit that an insurance policy
isn't an unlimited blank check. Sooner or later, whoever is "the deep
pockets" is going to start "rationing health care." But let's get real
and evaluate the next sentence.....

"If you come into this hospital, we're not going to let you die...."

Holy Crap, what incredible impertinence! That is just NOT their
decision. But wait, if you are in a persistent vegetative state, and
they keep your heart beating by extraordinary means..... uh..... you
haven't "died" yet..... right?

At least not until the money runs out and they have to start
rationing...... trust me.... there is NO FREE LUNCH.... and this has
NOTHING to do with humanitarian feelings toward you.... this is a
cold, hard, business decision.....

You missed this:

"Take the case of Salah Putrus, who at age 71 had a long history of
heart failure.

After repeated visits to his local hospital near Burbank, Calif., Mr.
Putrus was referred to U.C.L.A. this year to be evaluated for a heart
transplant.

Some other medical centers might have considered Mr. Putrus too old
for the surgery. But U.C.L.A.'s attitude was "let's see what we can do
for him," said his physician there, Dr. Tamara Horwich.

Indeed, Mr. Putrus recalled, Dr. Horwich and her colleagues "did every
test." They changed his medicines to reduce the amount of water he was
retaining. They even removed some teeth that could be a potential
source of infection.

His condition improved so much that more than six months later, Mr.
Putrus has remained out of the hospital and is no longer considered in
active need of a transplant. "
--

John H

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill

Hell of a difference between 71 and 85 or 90 years old. A 94 year old with
congestive heart failure and you are going to spend a 100k or so to
prolong
life a month?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep, and that's just because it's Obama's plan. If GWB had of done the
same (as with counseling sick vets) John would have uttered nary a
word.

Huh? Where is it Obama's plan? Is my plan!

Jim wrote:
Rob wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

On Dec 25, 7:14 pm, John wrote:
...Change is coming!

The NYTimes is giving seniors a Christmas present to ponder.

http://tinyurl.com/yl9vumo

"Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director and a disciple of
the Dartmouth data, has noted. We can no longer afford an overall
health care system in which the thought is more is always better,
because it s not. "

Another - "Because Dartmouth s analysis focuses solely on patients who
have died, a case like Mr. Putrus s would not show up in its data.
That is why critics say Dartmouth s approach takes an overly
pessimistic view of medicine: if you consider only the patients who
die, there is really no way to know whether it makes sense to spend
more on one case than another."

A preview of things to come?
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H
John, couldn't you, at least during the holidays stop your stupid and
inane everything Obama is bad bull****?

He can't help it. He and Rob are truly losers. Rob is obnoxious, so
I've
decided to just ignore his posts.. call it a New Year resolution.

Rob had nothing to do with this post. Kill file and run is so
typical of those who can't debate.

Peace
I think Mr. Plume has a woodie for you.
I think he has a woodie for someone. I hope it's not me!

Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 27, 10:18 am, wrote:

On 12/27/09 10:15 AM, Loogypicker wrote:






On Dec 27, 10:02 am, I am
wrote:

In articled02777de-b898-427e-a0a1-
, says....


On Dec 25, 7:14 pm, John wrote:

...Change is coming!


The NYTimes is giving seniors a Christmas present to ponder.


http://tinyurl.com/yl9vumo


"Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director and a disciple of
the Dartmouth data, has noted. We can no longer afford an overall
health care system in which the thought is more is always better,
because it s not. "


Another - "Because Dartmouth s analysis focuses solely on patients who
have died, a case like Mr. Putrus s would not show up in its data.
That is why critics say Dartmouth s approach takes an overly
pessimistic view of medicine: if you consider only the patients who
die, there is really no way to know whether it makes sense to spend
more on one case than another."


A preview of things to come?
--


Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!


John H


John, couldn't you, at least during the holidays stop your stupid and
inane everything Obama is bad bull****?


Pfffftttt, are you gonna' stop the "everything is Rush and Hannity"
bull****?- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


You know what, Scotty? Go right to **** ahead. Do just like John, make
yourself look like an unhinged, narrow minded fool.

Actually, all three of you are unhinged, narrow-minded fools, along with
BAR, the Krueger of the day, Canuck, the unemployed inventor of the
florida panhandle, and a few others. You and JustHate, though, still
share the trophy of dumbest posters in rec.boats.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

See you this spring!

WAFA doesn't *read* my posts.

I forgot, he reads *every* post.

Carry on...

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Dec 25, 7:14 pm, John wrote:


...Change is coming!

The NYTimes is giving seniors a Christmas present to ponder.

http://tinyurl.com/yl9vumo

"Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director and a disciple of
the Dartmouth data, has noted. We can no longer afford an overall
health care system in which the thought is more is always better,
because it s not. "

Another - "Because Dartmouth s analysis focuses solely on patients who
have died, a case like Mr. Putrus s would not show up in its data.
That is why critics say Dartmouth s approach takes an overly
pessimistic view of medicine: if you consider only the patients who
die, there is really no way to know whether it makes sense to spend
more on one case than another."

A preview of things to come?
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H



John, couldn't you, at least during the holidays stop your stupid and
inane everything Obama is bad bull****?


He can't help it. He and Rob are truly losers. Rob is obnoxious, so I've
decided to just ignore his posts.. call it a New Year resolution.



Rob had nothing to do with this post. Kill file and run is so typical of
those who can't debate.

Peace


I'm going to respond to this one post, then you can go do your own thing.

You've consistently tried to put me down, especially commenting about my
looks as though that's some major point you're trying to make, spout
completely regurgitate right-wing crap, and seem to be incapable of carrying
on a civil discussion. I'm a fairly tolerant person, and I've tried to humor
you, to be nice, and I hoped you'd get the message and start acting like an
adult. My mistake. You're just like Jim, if not the same person, someone
incapable of acting older than your shoe size.

Peace yourself. You can have the last word, and I won't be responding going
forward. Oh, and you're a jerk.


As Donnie would say... Golly, Harry, what do I do now?

**** off, Ms/Mr. Average.

On 12/27/09 8:09 PM, Rob wrote:
Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 27, 10:18 am, wrote:
On 12/27/09 10:15 AM, Loogypicker wrote:





On Dec 27, 10:02 am, I am
wrote:
In articled02777de-b898-427e-a0a1-
,
says....
On Dec 25, 7:14 pm, John wrote:
...Change is coming!
The NYTimes is giving seniors a Christmas present to ponder.
http://tinyurl.com/yl9vumo
"Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director and a disciple of
the Dartmouth data, has noted. We can no longer afford an overall
health care system in which the thought is more is always better,
because it s not. "
Another - "Because Dartmouth s analysis focuses solely on
patients who
have died, a case like Mr. Putrus s would not show up in its data.
That is why critics say Dartmouth s approach takes an overly
pessimistic view of medicine: if you consider only the patients who
die, there is really no way to know whether it makes sense to spend
more on one case than another."
A preview of things to come?
--
Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!
John H
John, couldn't you, at least during the holidays stop your stupid and
inane everything Obama is bad bull****?
Pfffftttt, are you gonna' stop the "everything is Rush and Hannity"
bull****?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You know what, Scotty? Go right to **** ahead. Do just like John, make
yourself look like an unhinged, narrow minded fool.
Actually, all three of you are unhinged, narrow-minded fools, along with
BAR, the Krueger of the day, Canuck, the unemployed inventor of the
florida panhandle, and a few others. You and JustHate, though, still
share the trophy of dumbest posters in rec.boats.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
See you this spring!
WAFA doesn't *read* my posts.

I forgot, he reads *every* post.

Carry on...



Naw. I never read "every" post, but I do have my filters off for the
moment, and I have seen a few of your recent posts. You're still the
same undereducated, ill-mannered, foul litte **** you've always been.
You wanted to know why you weren't getting debated? Easy answer: who
wants to discuss matters with a rotting pile of **** like you?

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 26/12/2009 12:47 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
"John wrote in message
news On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:44:40 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:56:19 -0500, John
wrote:

However,
I believe you should have the choice.

What choice? Dying with dignity or being kept alive, with
extraordinary means, in a persistent vegetative state? Indefinitely?

And, there's always the chance
that the extra little amount of medical care would add another ten
fruitful years to your life.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Let's recap, per your
link:

".... has earned a reputation as a place where doctors will go to
virtually any length and expense to try to save a patient's life. "

This sounds great until you have to admit that an insurance policy
isn't an unlimited blank check. Sooner or later, whoever is "the deep
pockets" is going to start "rationing health care." But let's get real
and evaluate the next sentence.....

"If you come into this hospital, we're not going to let you die...."

Holy Crap, what incredible impertinence! That is just NOT their
decision. But wait, if you are in a persistent vegetative state, and
they keep your heart beating by extraordinary means..... uh..... you
haven't "died" yet..... right?

At least not until the money runs out and they have to start
rationing...... trust me.... there is NO FREE LUNCH.... and this has
NOTHING to do with humanitarian feelings toward you.... this is a
cold, hard, business decision.....

You missed this:

"Take the case of Salah Putrus, who at age 71 had a long history of
heart failure.

After repeated visits to his local hospital near Burbank, Calif., Mr.
Putrus was referred to U.C.L.A. this year to be evaluated for a heart
transplant.

Some other medical centers might have considered Mr. Putrus too old
for the surgery. But U.C.L.A.'s attitude was "let's see what we can do
for him," said his physician there, Dr. Tamara Horwich.

Indeed, Mr. Putrus recalled, Dr. Horwich and her colleagues "did every
test." They changed his medicines to reduce the amount of water he was
retaining. They even removed some teeth that could be a potential
source of infection.

His condition improved so much that more than six months later, Mr.
Putrus has remained out of the hospital and is no longer considered in
active need of a transplant. "
--

John H

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill

Hell of a difference between 71 and 85 or 90 years old. A 94 year old
with
congestive heart failure and you are going to spend a 100k or so to
prolong
life a month?

So who gets to play god?

I am sure your health care would be cheaper if you were to sign a binding
orrevokable document that says you will never require an operation over
$100K and they are under no obligation to provided it. You cannot sue,
whine, bitch, contemplate or whatever when your term is up. This is
irrevocable in your lifetime.

Don't worry, Americans just subscribed to this. Read up on how
government saves on health care. Old farts looking for a free lunch,
guess what, you might find you are too old to qualify for the by-pass or
whatever....

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf

A lot of truth under this title:

Rationing : “Everything is Free but Nothing is Readily Available” (Frogue
et al, 2001)



If you have the money, no problem with your family paying for
extraordinary means to keep you alive. Even in a vegetative state. But
when it comes to insurance, a 90 year old with a life expectancy of 6
months, who has no idea of who he is or where he is, does not need the
rest of us to supply him extraordinary healthcare.



I certainly agree! That's one reason why we should allow docs to receive pay
for end-of-life counseling to families. It was stripped out of the bill by
the conservatives. Why? It was totally fiscally responsible.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 27/12/2009 12:44 PM, Harry wrote:

If those hillbillies in japan can build that car for $20,000, it's
because they have a national health care system that spreads its cost
over the entire country, and not the manufacturer of that car.

Lets examine that in more detail. Japanese can make an auto for $20,000
in Japan and has health care. Probably the same class, style, power
would have to be at least $35,000 at GM and be less reliable, and that
doesn't include the 2009 $60,000 per auto bailout.

So what else is wrong.

First, when a Japanese company screws up, management is expected to fix
it immediately or resign immediately. No big fat pensions with
severences either, just gone. It is the only honorable thing he can do,
other than to commit suicide.

Boards and owners don't like excuses. They like solid realistic well
executed plans. Start fouling up here and your next job is cleaning the
toilets. Which is where most Japanese executives started. None of this
float to the top like scum.

Workers take individual responsibility for the health of their company,
which includes the quality and cost of their work. Customer
satisfaction. If something is wrong with their work and the customer
finds it, they will learn about it. If the employee doesn't straighten
up, the fedearation (union) might fire them first as the federation
knows screwing around will cost their membership. Or the possibility of
some after work corrections activity.

Companies in Japan make life long commitments to employees. Honor and
integrity mater. None of this hit 50 and lay you off to duck pension
costs. Hell, a manager there would find himself gone for trying that
BS. Get caught fixing the books, maybe 2 years later you quietly
disappear and your family in disgrase can't get jobs.

A whole different culture, much more defined social behavior where honor
and integrity mater more than ruthlessness and corruption.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:30:31 -0500, wrote:

Nope what? If you are really rich you manage to keep most of your
income off of line 37 of your 1040 so that chart is bogus.
I am just citing Warren Buffett and he is probably more honest on his
taxes than your dentist, who is also in that top 1% column.

Looking at tax rates is usually a distraction.
What matters is how much you have when the taxes are done.
One guy clears 10 grand, another 500 grand.
Almost invariably it's the guy with the $500k bitching and moaning.
And he's the guy with the clout to make his bottom line better, and
squeeze some more from the guy with the $10k.
That's just how it is.
There're charts out there saying who pays what percentage of total
taxes, and there're charts of who has the wealth and assets.
Take your pick.

--Vic