"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:42:30 -0800, Jack wrote:

On Dec 26, 11:15 am, thunder wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:12:54 -0800, Jack wrote:
"His boy?" I think you mean *our* President. You can live in
denial, but I'll point out Obama's main legislative agenda, health
care reform, looks to be on track for passage. The recession is
over and jobs *will* rebound. Not at all bad for his *first* year
in office. I'm thinking Obama is becoming unstoppable.

You'd better start working harder to get the word out. Your opinion
is now in the overwhelming minority.

LOL, more denial from the right.

LOL yourself...

"Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the
President's performance. The President's overall approval has stayed
between 44% and 46% every day for thirteen days. Prior to that, it had
stayed between 46% and 50% every day for more than two months. Fifty-
six percent (56%) now disapprove of the President's performance."

That bears repeating... "Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove of the
President's performance."

A 45% approval rating is not an "overwhelming minority." Republican
approval ratings are approaching an overwhelming minority.

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

But then, who cares about poll numbers. At about this time in his
Presidency, Reagan's approval ratings were less than 50%. He served two
full terms, and many consider him to be one of the great presidents.

Why is it that Dems always take their surveys at the exit points of fund
raisers or free meals?

Hey, just wondering.

Steve

On Dec 26, 11:57*am, thunder wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:42:30 -0800, Jack wrote:
On Dec 26, 11:15*am, thunder wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:12:54 -0800, Jack wrote:
"His boy?" *I think you mean *our* President. *You can live in
denial, but I'll point out Obama's main legislative agenda, health
care reform, looks to be on track for passage. *The recession is
over and jobs *will* rebound. *Not at all bad for his *first* year
in office. *I'm thinking Obama is becoming unstoppable.

You'd better start working harder to get the word out. *Your opinion
is now in the overwhelming minority.

LOL, more denial from the right.

LOL yourself...

"Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the
President's performance. The President’s overall approval has stayed
between 44% and 46% every day for thirteen days. Prior to that, it had
stayed between 46% and 50% every day for more than two months. Fifty-
six percent (56%) now disapprove of the President’s performance."

That bears repeating... "Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove of the
President’s performance."

A 45% approval rating is not an "overwhelming minority." *Republican
approval ratings are approaching an overwhelming minority.

As are the Demoncrats numbers in congress... so? We're talking about
your boy, not congresscritters. Stay focused.

On Dec 26, 10:54Â*am, Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 26, 10:15Â*am, "D.Duck" wrote:





Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 26, 8:34 am, John H wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:21:51 -0500, Jim wrote:
Harry wrote:
On 12/26/09 12:20 AM, Steve B wrote:
Â*wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:23:51 -0800, "Steve B"
Â*wrote:
"John Â*wrote in message
news:b5laj5hrbqgpego8r6tiulf9jca9k39aig@4ax .com...
...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
If they were serious about saving money, wouldn't they just all get
on a
conference call instead of flying their jets to Denmark to schmooze
around?
Barry has some expensive tastes, and so does Michelle.
Steve
Jon Stewart pointed out that these climate savers managed to lease
every limo in western europe, some couriered in from as far away as
Germany so nobody had to share a ride.
Well, you can't have people who are interested in saving the planet
have to
ride two to a limo or two to a jet, now can you. Â*It's just not done.
I wonder how many heating oil tanks could have been filled for what was
spent on that extravaganza.
BTW, what's a caviar wedge? Â*I understand they ate a lot of caviar. Â*That
would have bought a lot of turkeys at the shelters.
I bet they had expensive cognac and real Cuban cigars, too.
Nothing too good for our tax dollars.
Steve
Does anyone recall "stevie" objecting when bush was spending like a
drunken sailor, and cutting taxes for the wealthy at the same time?
Hypocrisy, thy real name is republican/conservative. Nothing is piled
higher than republican/conservative b.s.
Nothing except the burgeoning public debt.
Did someone justify Obama's spending using Bush as a rationale?

How silly.
--

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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ever hear of the word "precedent"? It's used legally binding all of
the time.

Can you clarify?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes:

precâ‹…eâ‹…dent  /n. ˈprÉ›sɪdÉ™nt; adj. prɪˈsidnt, ˈprÉ›sɪdÉ™nt/ Â*Show Spelled
Pronunciation [n. pres-i-duhnt; adj. pri-seed-nt, pres-i-duhnt] Â*Show
IPA

–noun
1. Law. a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an
authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So if the person in front of you jumps off a cliff, then it's OK for
you to do it too?

Jack wrote:
On Dec 26, 11:57 am, thunder wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:42:30 -0800, Jack wrote:
On Dec 26, 11:15 am, thunder wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:12:54 -0800, Jack wrote:
"His boy?" I think you mean *our* President. You can live in
denial, but I'll point out Obama's main legislative agenda, health
care reform, looks to be on track for passage. The recession is
over and jobs *will* rebound. Not at all bad for his *first* year
in office. I'm thinking Obama is becoming unstoppable.
You'd better start working harder to get the word out. Your opinion
is now in the overwhelming minority.
LOL, more denial from the right.
LOL yourself...
"Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the
President's performance. The President’s overall approval has stayed
between 44% and 46% every day for thirteen days. Prior to that, it had
stayed between 46% and 50% every day for more than two months. Fifty-
six percent (56%) now disapprove of the President’s performance."
That bears repeating... "Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove of the
President’s performance."
A 45% approval rating is not an "overwhelming minority." Republican
approval ratings are approaching an overwhelming minority.

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

But then, who cares about poll numbers. At about this time in his
Presidency, Reagan's approval ratings were less than 50%. He served two
full terms, and many consider him to be one of the great presidents.

And Obama has fallen in the polls farther and faster than any other
president in recent memory, including Carter. But to define
"overwhelming", I'm just using the liberal's definition. After all,
you guys called a 2 - 3 % victory for Obama in the popular vote
overwhelming. You're not allowed to change the definition now just
because your boy looks bad. Too bad.

After this recession falters along, then the tax hikes start kicking
in for *all* Americans, and the stagflation is the top story, it won't
matter how loudly you guys shout that it's Bush's fault. The public
has a short memory, and it's your boy in charge. Obama will be Carter
redux... another Dem one-hit-wonder. It's already in the cards.
Enjoy it while you can.

I don't think obama can hold off on the tax hikes for two more years.
I'm betting they will begin shortly after the 2010 election. By then his
popularity will be in the 10% approval range.

"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?

On 26/12/2009 12:50 PM, Gene wrote:
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:17:46 -0600,
wrote:

Our
medical technology sector, already top of the world, could provide export
dollars.

Good point, but we are so ridiculously overpriced, nobody is
interested.... unless the devalued dollar is greatly in their favor.

Americans are pouring out of the country for affordable medical care.
Destinations include Israel, Jordan, UAE, Brazil, Canada, Mexico,
Panama, China, Hong Kong, India, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand and
others....

American's don't come to Canada for government health care, if they did
they would be sadly disappointed.

Canadians often go to Costa Rica but hear Panama is increasingly better.

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.

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)

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:49:48 -0500, Harry wrote:

On 12/26/09 12:20 AM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:23:51 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"John wrote in message
...
...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

If they were serious about saving money, wouldn't they just all get
on a conference call instead of flying their jets to Denmark to
schmooze around?

Barry has some expensive tastes, and so does Michelle.

Steve


Jon Stewart pointed out that these climate savers managed to lease
every limo in western europe, some couriered in from as far away as
Germany so nobody had to share a ride.

Well, you can't have people who are interested in saving the planet
have to ride two to a limo or two to a jet, now can you. It's just not
done.

I wonder how many heating oil tanks could have been filled for what was
spent on that extravaganza.
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
BTW, what's a caviar wedge? I understand they ate a lot of caviar.
That would have bought a lot of turkeys at the shelters.

I bet they had expensive cognac and real Cuban cigars, too.

Nothing too good for our tax dollars.

Steve



Does anyone recall "stevie" objecting when bush was spending like a
drunken sailor, and cutting taxes for the wealthy at the same time?

Hypocrisy, thy real name is republican/conservative. Nothing is piled
higher than republican/conservative b.s.

Stevie is fresh meat to Usenet. Note how he is so impolite as to change
the whole meaning of the thread without missing a beat or changing the
subject line. From dead patients to jets to Denmark in the blink of an
eye.

He wasn't familiar with the high jacking of a thread until now and showed
no style at it either. I would say John took one to the groin.

On 26/12/2009 2:08 PM, RLM wrote:

"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

Churchill was a wise man. Never saw that written so well.