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


".... has earned a reputation as a place where doctors will go to
virtually any length and expense to try to save a patientÂ’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....”

Nothing for nothing, but this sounds like a great *teaching* hospital. I
want a doctor that would take my death personally, not one that asks
"What's for lunch?" as they wheel my body out.

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.....

It is a complex issue, isn't it? As it stands now, end of life spending
is becoming a great transfer of wealth. Spending $100,000s to prolong a
life a week or two, seems pretty silly, but how to you tell if it will be
a couple of weeks or a couple of decades? A doctor should fight for
every second of life. However, as the customer, I should set the
parameters in which he works. Living wills are a good thing.

You mention a "business decision". It seems to me tying health insurance
to business, was a faulty paradigm from the beginning, competitively and
socially. However, health care has the potential of reviving this entire
economy. Health care jobs are well paying and *local*. IMO, they could
provide a replacement for the manufacturing jobs we have lost. Our
medical technology sector, already top of the world, could provide export
dollars. In the public debate, we've been looking at health care as a
drain on the economy. I'm thinking it could save the economy. It's
basic economics, manufacture something of value, and the whole world
values life, at least in theory.

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:17:46 -0600, thunder
wrote:

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


".... 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....?

Nothing for nothing, but this sounds like a great *teaching* hospital. I
want a doctor that would take my death personally, not one that asks
"What's for lunch?" as they wheel my body out.

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.....

It is a complex issue, isn't it? As it stands now, end of life spending
is becoming a great transfer of wealth. Spending $100,000s to prolong a
life a week or two, seems pretty silly, but how to you tell if it will be
a couple of weeks or a couple of decades? A doctor should fight for
every second of life. However, as the customer, I should set the
parameters in which he works. Living wills are a good thing.

You mention a "business decision". It seems to me tying health insurance
to business, was a faulty paradigm from the beginning, competitively and
socially. However, health care has the potential of reviving this entire
economy. Health care jobs are well paying and *local*. IMO, they could
provide a replacement for the manufacturing jobs we have lost. Our
medical technology sector, already top of the world, could provide export
dollars. In the public debate, we've been looking at health care as a
drain on the economy. I'm thinking it could save the economy. It's
basic economics, manufacture something of value, and the whole world
values life, at least in theory.


"Living wills are a good thing."

Great words. The choice is yours to make, not some money advisor to
the President.
--

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

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:22:38 -0500, John H
wrote:



"Living wills are a good thing."

Great words. The choice is yours to make, not some money advisor to
the President.

Keep your finances in order so your survivors can keep as much of your
money as possible, so their time here is eased.
Forget about hating politicians and think more about God.
His arms are open, warm, and welcoming.
Life here is a fleeting time, and should be enjoyed by loving and
being loved.
Arguing about politicians in a hellish manner only predicts your
future and eternal place of residence.
Even a hell filled with golfers is better than one filled with
politicians.
But only slightly.

--Vic

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:17:46 -0600, thunder
wrote:

You mention a "business decision". It seems to me tying health insurance
to business, was a faulty paradigm from the beginning, competitively and
socially. However, health care has the potential of reviving this entire
economy. Health care jobs are well paying and *local*. IMO, they could
provide a replacement for the manufacturing jobs we have lost. Our
medical technology sector, already top of the world, could provide export
dollars. In the public debate, we've been looking at health care as a
drain on the economy. I'm thinking it could save the economy. It's
basic economics, manufacture something of value, and the whole world
values life, at least in theory.

You're right and as far as it goes, it would be a boon.

Unfortunately, that requires a free market approach to keep costs
competitive and we just got a crap sandwich of a "health care" bill.

This is gonna be a diaster and the more the details are being exposed,
it's becoming apparent that it's nothing more than a Chavez style take
over of a major industry - confiscatory and restrictive.

Hopefully, 2010 will bring a reversal of this boondoogle.

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:42:17 -0500, Tom Francis wrote:


You're right and as far as it goes, it would be a boon.

Unfortunately, that requires a free market approach to keep costs
competitive and we just got a crap sandwich of a "health care" bill.

This is gonna be a diaster and the more the details are being exposed,
it's becoming apparent that it's nothing more than a Chavez style take
over of a major industry - confiscatory and restrictive.

Hopefully, 2010 will bring a reversal of this boondoogle.

For different reasons, like you, I'm not overly happy with the proposed
health care bill, but we've been trying, without success, to get health
care legislation for 60 years. Regardless, of this bill's quality, that
sacred cow has been slaughtered. Now, fine tuning, in the future, will
be considerably easier to accomplish.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:42:17 -0500, Tom Francis wrote:


You're right and as far as it goes, it would be a boon.

Unfortunately, that requires a free market approach to keep costs
competitive and we just got a crap sandwich of a "health care" bill.

This is gonna be a diaster and the more the details are being exposed,
it's becoming apparent that it's nothing more than a Chavez style take
over of a major industry - confiscatory and restrictive.

Hopefully, 2010 will bring a reversal of this boondoogle.

For different reasons, like you, I'm not overly happy with the proposed
health care bill, but we've been trying, without success, to get health
care legislation for 60 years. Regardless, of this bill's quality, that
sacred cow has been slaughtered. Now, fine tuning, in the future, will
be considerably easier to accomplish.

Why have we been trying to get health care legislation for 60 years?

Other than to control the population what does the health care
legislation do?

On 12/26/09 7:54 PM, thunder wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:42:17 -0500, Tom Francis wrote:


You're right and as far as it goes, it would be a boon.

Unfortunately, that requires a free market approach to keep costs
competitive and we just got a crap sandwich of a "health care" bill.

This is gonna be a diaster and the more the details are being exposed,
it's becoming apparent that it's nothing more than a Chavez style take
over of a major industry - confiscatory and restrictive.

Hopefully, 2010 will bring a reversal of this boondoogle.

For different reasons, like you, I'm not overly happy with the proposed
health care bill, but we've been trying, without success, to get health
care legislation for 60 years. Regardless, of this bill's quality, that
sacred cow has been slaughtered. Now, fine tuning, in the future, will
be considerably easier to accomplish.

I view what will emerge in January as a start, as you do. I also believe
the Obama admin learned a few lessons, the most important being that it
doesn't matter whether you listen to the republicans. Best policy, just
ignore the Republicans whenever possible, and end up with better
legislation.

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:54:00 -0600, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:42:17 -0500, Tom Francis wrote:


You're right and as far as it goes, it would be a boon.

Unfortunately, that requires a free market approach to keep costs
competitive and we just got a crap sandwich of a "health care" bill.

This is gonna be a diaster and the more the details are being exposed,
it's becoming apparent that it's nothing more than a Chavez style take
over of a major industry - confiscatory and restrictive.

Hopefully, 2010 will bring a reversal of this boondoogle.

For different reasons, like you, I'm not overly happy with the proposed
health care bill, but we've been trying, without success, to get health
care legislation for 60 years. Regardless, of this bill's quality, that
sacred cow has been slaughtered. Now, fine tuning, in the future, will
be considerably easier to accomplish.

You're right - it's not "slaughtered" as you say.

Unfortunately, nothing is going to be able to be "fine tuned". The
basic premise is false, the concept is totally foreign to the way
Americans think (well, the majority anyway) and there is literally
nothing we can do about it now other than repeal the entire bill and
start over again.

On the other hand, the lake is calling and I'm going fishing. :)

Save the debate for another day. :)

On 26/12/2009 6:28 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:54:00 -0600,
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:42:17 -0500, Tom Francis wrote:


You're right and as far as it goes, it would be a boon.

Unfortunately, that requires a free market approach to keep costs
competitive and we just got a crap sandwich of a "health care" bill.

This is gonna be a diaster and the more the details are being exposed,
it's becoming apparent that it's nothing more than a Chavez style take
over of a major industry - confiscatory and restrictive.

Hopefully, 2010 will bring a reversal of this boondoogle.

For different reasons, like you, I'm not overly happy with the proposed
health care bill, but we've been trying, without success, to get health
care legislation for 60 years. Regardless, of this bill's quality, that
sacred cow has been slaughtered. Now, fine tuning, in the future, will
be considerably easier to accomplish.


If this dies in conference because the house and senate can't agree,
the cow will just crawl off bleeding.

Not really. The government is desperate to increase revenue. And what
a better way than for get all those health care dollars them dumb down
the system for "economics" and not disclose the skimming?

All this nanny state talk and debt-corruption spending by
Ombama-be-my-mama types needs to be funded. Sure seems like an active
unwllingness by congress and the senate to stop it.

It will come down to how people vote in 2010....many a congress/senate
are trying to BS their way out of their corrupt behavior and
misrepresentation.

On Dec 26, 6:42*pm, Tom Francis
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:17:46 -0600, thunder
wrote:

You mention a "business decision". *It seems to me tying health insurance
to business, was a faulty paradigm from the beginning, competitively and
socially. *However, health care has the potential of reviving this entire
economy. *Health care jobs are well paying and *local*. *IMO, they could
provide a replacement for the manufacturing jobs we have lost. *Our
medical technology sector, already top of the world, could provide export
dollars. *In the public debate, we've been looking at health care as a
drain on the economy. *I'm thinking it could save the economy. *It's
basic economics, manufacture something of value, and the whole world
values life, at least in theory.

You're right and as far as it goes, it would be a boon.

Unfortunately, that requires a free market approach to keep costs
competitive and we just got a crap sandwich of a "health care" bill.


LOL! That reminds me of the saying that "Life is a crap sandwich,
but the more bread you got, the less crap you gotta eat!"

Seems there's a lot of truth to that.