In article ,
says...

In article d02777de-b898-427e-a0a1-
, says...

On Dec 25, 7:14*pm, John H 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****?

I just finished watching David Gregory on Meet the Press interview Janet
Napalitano about the terrorist incident on the NWA flight from Amsterdam
to Detroit. I think that David Gregory tapes up his seams before each
show just to hold himself together and not call some of the people he
interviews the idiots they are. Nepalitano sounded more like Gibbs, a
press secretary than a cabinet secretary. I could tell he was just about
to burst at the aforementioned seams and call her an idiot and ask here
how she got her job.

What does this have to do with Obama? Obama appointed Naplitano to be
the head of DHS. Obviously Obama didn't want a competent person at the
helm of the DHS or Obama is an idiot too in that he can't see
incompetence when it is staring him in the face.

On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:28:45 -0500, BAR wrote:


What does this have to do with Obama? Obama appointed Naplitano to be
the head of DHS. Obviously Obama didn't want a competent person at the
helm of the DHS or Obama is an idiot too in that he can't see
incompetence when it is staring him in the face.

Let's see, valedictorian of her college class, J.D. from University of
Virginia, US Attorney for the District of Arizona, Attorney General of
Arizona, Governor of Arizona ... yup, must be an idiot.

On 12/27/09 11:43 AM, thunder wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:28:45 -0500, BAR wrote:


What does this have to do with Obama? Obama appointed Naplitano to be
the head of DHS. Obviously Obama didn't want a competent person at the
helm of the DHS or Obama is an idiot too in that he can't see
incompetence when it is staring him in the face.

Let's see, valedictorian of her college class, J.D. from University of
Virginia, US Attorney for the District of Arizona, Attorney General of
Arizona, Governor of Arizona ... yup, must be an idiot.


You do know that BAR has the c.v. to make a judgment:

Near high school dropout
joined marines
no college
works computer help desk
plays golf with herring

thunder wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:28:45 -0500, BAR wrote:


What does this have to do with Obama? Obama appointed Naplitano to be
the head of DHS. Obviously Obama didn't want a competent person at the
helm of the DHS or Obama is an idiot too in that he can't see
incompetence when it is staring him in the face.

Let's see, valedictorian of her college class, J.D. from University of
Virginia, US Attorney for the District of Arizona, Attorney General of
Arizona, Governor of Arizona ... yup, must be an idiot.


There's a thing called all G2 and no gee-whiz.

On 12/27/09 11:28 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

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****?

I just finished watching David Gregory on Meet the Press interview Janet
Napalitano about the terrorist incident on the NWA flight from Amsterdam
to Detroit. I think that David Gregory tapes up his seams before each
show just to hold himself together and not call some of the people he
interviews the idiots they are. Nepalitano sounded more like Gibbs, a
press secretary than a cabinet secretary. I could tell he was just about
to burst at the aforementioned seams and call her an idiot and ask here
how she got her job.

What does this have to do with Obama? Obama appointed Naplitano to be
the head of DHS. Obviously Obama didn't want a competent person at the
helm of the DHS or Obama is an idiot too in that he can't see
incompetence when it is staring him in the face.


You mean, he should have nominated a guy who barely got out of high
school, skipped college, joined the marines, and knows nothing about law
enforcement...someone like you, for example?

On 12/27/09 11:28 AM, BAR wrote:

I just finished watching David Gregory on Meet the Press interview Janet
Napalitano about the terrorist incident on the NWA flight from Amsterdam
to Detroit. I think that David Gregory tapes up his seams before each
show just to hold himself together and not call some of the people he
interviews the idiots they are. Nepalitano sounded more like Gibbs, a
press secretary than a cabinet secretary. I could tell he was just about
to burst at the aforementioned seams and call her an idiot and ask here
how she got her job.

What does this have to do with Obama? Obama appointed Naplitano to be
the head of DHS. Obviously Obama didn't want a competent person at the
helm of the DHS or Obama is an idiot too in that he can't see
incompetence when it is staring him in the face.



BTW, I saw the same interview, and was impressed by Napolitano's
calmness and caution in jumping to conclusions. Were we still mired in
the previous administration, we'd be seeing Cheney on TV, along with the
other superchickenhawks of the Bush years, jumping up and down,
screaming, and urging an immediate attack on some country we haven't yet
invaded.

It's nice to have a competent, intelligent president in the White House, eh?

BTW, I believe you misspelled Napolitano's name three times in your
post. Your purpose might have been better served had you enlisted in
college instead of the marines, eh?

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:36:20 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 19:14:37 -0500, John H
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?

When my time comes, I don't WANT to be in "a place where doctors will
go to virtually any length and expense to try to save a patient’s
life."

I have a DNR and I MEAN it...... extreme medical intervention to keep
one's bodily functions going after sentience has ceased does not
constitute (at any rate of their cherished revenue) *life*.... at
least not *life* as I care to know it....

This has been, in essence, a loophole in the law that allowed doctors
and medical facilities to continue charging for "medical care" long
after the patient was, by any sane definition, dead. It was legal
fraud that the insurance companies allowed.... I DO NOT want my tax
dollar wasted in that manner....

Good on ya. I don't want my tax dollar wasted on you either. However,
I believe you should have the choice. And, there's always the chance
that the extra little amount of medical care would add another ten
fruitful years to your life.
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H

On 12/25/09 9:56 PM, John H wrote:
And, there's always the chance
that the extra little amount of medical care would add another ten
fruitful years to your life.


Well, no worries about that with you. ALL a DNR on your toe would mean
is a net gain for the taxpayers.

In article ,
om says...

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:36:20 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 19:14:37 -0500, John H
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?

When my time comes, I don't WANT to be in "a place where doctors will
go to virtually any length and expense to try to save a patient?s
life."

I have a DNR and I MEAN it...... extreme medical intervention to keep
one's bodily functions going after sentience has ceased does not
constitute (at any rate of their cherished revenue) *life*.... at
least not *life* as I care to know it....

This has been, in essence, a loophole in the law that allowed doctors
and medical facilities to continue charging for "medical care" long
after the patient was, by any sane definition, dead. It was legal
fraud that the insurance companies allowed.... I DO NOT want my tax
dollar wasted in that manner....

Good on ya. I don't want my tax dollar wasted on you either. However,
I believe you should have the choice. And, there's always the chance
that the extra little amount of medical care would add another ten
fruitful years to your life.

I've got a DNR and a pump me full of pain killers even if it kills me.
The last thing I want to do is be laying in a hospital bed in pain and
be able to tell anyone I hurt.

Plus, my wife's new boyfriend can't get any of my money.

On Dec 25, 9:56*pm, John H wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:36:20 -0500, Gene





wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 19:14:37 -0500, John H
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?

When my time comes, I don't WANT to be in "a place where doctors will
go to virtually any length and expense to try to save a patient’s
life."

I have a DNR and I MEAN it...... *extreme medical intervention to keep
one's bodily functions going after sentience has ceased does not
constitute (at any rate of their cherished revenue) *life*.... at
least not *life* as I care to know it....

This has been, in essence, a loophole in the law that allowed doctors
and medical facilities to continue charging for "medical care" long
after the patient was, by any sane definition, dead. It was legal
fraud that the insurance companies allowed.... I DO NOT want my tax
dollar wasted in that manner....

Good on ya. I don't want my tax dollar wasted on you either. However,
I believe you should have the choice. And, there's always the chance
that the extra little amount of medical care would add another ten
fruitful years to your life.
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, you don't want your tax dollars wasted on someone else, but you're
fine with taxpayers paying to keep YOU alive if you so choose?