"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:59:00 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote:

On Dec 26, 10:54 am, Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 26, 10:15 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:
wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:23:51 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:
"John 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. 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? 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.
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:

prec?e?dent??/n. ?pr?s?d?nt; adj. pr??sidnt, ?pr?s?d?nt/ Show Spelled
Pronunciation [n. pres-i-duhnt; adj. pri-seed-nt, pres-i-duhnt] 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?

Hey, they set a precedent. There's good ones and bad ones. According
to Loogy, they should all be emulated just 'cause they're precedents.

Liberal judges in New Hampshire and elsewhere set precedents when
they let child rapists off with a one year sentence. Those precedents
leads to things like this:

http://tinyurl.com/yd8s8yf
--

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


And liberal governors like Huckabee... oh wait....


--
Nom=de=Plume

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

On 12/26/09 10:20 PM, 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


Debate? With a worthless piece of **** like you? What's the point? You
don't know anything. You don't stand for anything. You're just an
argumentative, nasty piece of right-wing ****. You were more likable
when you pretended to be freddy krueger's brother.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:46:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:39:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



There's no "free health care" in the current or expected bill, so that's
just your musing or right-wing fear-induced.

This is what most fans think it is supposed to be and the models they
have been spinning (Canada, Japan, Scandinavia) reinforce that.
Actually the expansion of Medicaid from 133% to 150% of the poverty
level (house and senate versions) will make it free for a lot of
people.

Fans? No one I've heard of is spinning those systems. If you're talking
France (rated #1) or Germany or perhaps the UK, even then, no one is
spinning those, and they are much closer to ours, including what the bill
appears to do.


Canada gets mentioned every time this comes up and if you say France,
you are talking about "Free" medical care ... unless you pay taxes.
The problem is that level of taxation is politically impossible here
so it would just be rampaging debt.

Canada gets mentioned as a unlikely and not viable example for the US. The
French med system isn't free. Umm... most people pay taxes, except maybe the
very, very rich, and the very, very poor.


The people who pay will be paying a lot more and a lot of people who
choose not to buy insurance will have to buy it. That will be a
sticker shock for them

Which people? Those who don't have it, mostly want it. Sure, there are
always a few who choose or can afford not to have it.

It is mostly young people in mediocre jobs who don't buy insurance.
Those are the ones we need in the system if this is actually going to
be insurance.

Yes, but they could afford it if it's set up properly, which is where we
need to be.

Otherwise it is just a medical brokerage. Nobody wants to buy
insurance until they think their medical bills will be more than their
premium.

Nobody wants to buy car ins., but we're generally required by law to do
that.


The deficit isn't a bread and butter issue with most people. You're
talking
about the budget deficit and not the trade deficit right? Just checking.

It will become a bread and butter issue when bread and butter become
more expensive (the carbon tax). Actually in the late 80s and early
90s, the deficit was an election issue (Ross Perot). It brought us
about 3 years of sound fiscal policy with the help of the 104th
congress.

I don't think you can credit Perot with "sound fiscal policy." He was
another wacko, smart business man that he was.

He was a whacko who drove the fiscal policy of Gingrich/Clinton that
got us close to even for a year or two. You could criticize Perot for
being an egotistical jerk but his charts were right on.

Gingrich?? His "Contract on America" was just a rehash of the same bs.
Clinton mostly got things under control.

Perot was unwilling to listen to anyone. Having a good chart means very
little.


I actually saw Perot once at EDS in Rockville Md, and he fired me for
having hair on my face. Too bad I didn't work for him.



Jobs will be an issue. If they continue to turn around, then the Dems
don't
have much to worry about.

I am just not sure what these people are going to do. We have exported
most manufacturing and we have several years worth of built and unsold
houses, condos and commercial buildings.

Yes, but the jobs situation is starting to turn around. If that
continues...

The problem is, guys who used to be making $60,000 and up, building
cars and houses are now back working... but for half that at some
menial job.



Ok, so what's your solution?

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Rob" 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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:32:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:46:08 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:39:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Canada gets mentioned every time this comes up and if you say France,
you are talking about "Free" medical care ... unless you pay taxes.
The problem is that level of taxation is politically impossible here
so it would just be rampaging debt.

Canada gets mentioned as a unlikely and not viable example for the US. The
French med system isn't free. Umm... most people pay taxes, except maybe
the
very, very rich, and the very, very poor.

In the US 43% of the low end pay no income tax and the high end up
paying around 15%. I don't see that changing anytime soon since the
congress is well bribed by the rich.

Nope... http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html



The people who pay will be paying a lot more and a lot of people who
choose not to buy insurance will have to buy it. That will be a
sticker shock for them

Which people? Those who don't have it, mostly want it. Sure, there are
always a few who choose or can afford not to have it.

It is mostly young people in mediocre jobs who don't buy insurance.
Those are the ones we need in the system if this is actually going to
be insurance.

Yes, but they could afford it if it's set up properly, which is where we
need to be.

"Afford" is a relative term. They don't want to pay anything unless
they are sick and they think a couple hundred a month is too much for
something they don't plan on using.

I don't believe that most people who are uninsured prefer to stay that way.
Can you cite the source for this?


Otherwise it is just a medical brokerage. Nobody wants to buy
insurance until they think their medical bills will be more than their
premium.

Nobody wants to buy car ins., but we're generally required by law to do
that.
... But they have convinced us driving a car is not a right, it is
just from the kindness of the government that we are allowed to drive.

Why do you think it's a right? Is it written into the Constitution? It's a
privilege that needs to be earned.



The deficit isn't a bread and butter issue with most people. You're
talking
about the budget deficit and not the trade deficit right? Just
checking.

It will become a bread and butter issue when bread and butter become
more expensive (the carbon tax). Actually in the late 80s and early
90s, the deficit was an election issue (Ross Perot). It brought us
about 3 years of sound fiscal policy with the help of the 104th
congress.

I don't think you can credit Perot with "sound fiscal policy." He was
another wacko, smart business man that he was.

He was a whacko who drove the fiscal policy of Gingrich/Clinton that
got us close to even for a year or two. You could criticize Perot for
being an egotistical jerk but his charts were right on.

Gingrich?? His "Contract on America" was just a rehash of the same bs.
Clinton mostly got things under control.

You can't underestimate the contribution Gingrich made for Clinton's
surplus. Ways and Means is a House function and that is where the
money comes from. They also control spending.

Gingrich did very little that he wasn't forced to do. Clinton called his
bluff as I recall.


Perot was unwilling to listen to anyone. Having a good chart means very
little.

Perot got the public ready to accept the fiscal responsibility
represented by the largest tax increase in history. That is how
Clinton managed a surplus. He also pointed out the problem we have
now, the amount of short term debt the government is carrying. If your
debt is mostly in short term paper you have no idea what the interest
rate will be when you have to roll it over ... or even if anyone will
buy it. If China suddenly decided to just go somewhere else with their
money and not renew their US paper we couldn't pay them what was due.
That is a lot more of a problem for us than global warming, terrorism
and the health care crisis combined. China calling in their cash would
be about as bad as that planet killing comet we are overdue for.

Oh come on... Perot never got much public support, and he quit and then
changed his mind.


I actually saw Perot once at EDS in Rockville Md, and he fired me for
having hair on my face. Too bad I didn't work for him.



Jobs will be an issue. If they continue to turn around, then the Dems
don't
have much to worry about.

I am just not sure what these people are going to do. We have exported
most manufacturing and we have several years worth of built and unsold
houses, condos and commercial buildings.

Yes, but the jobs situation is starting to turn around. If that
continues...

The problem is, guys who used to be making $60,000 and up, building
cars and houses are now back working... but for half that at some
menial job.



Ok, so what's your solution?

Send about 5 million people to Navy Corpsman school and set them up in
storefront clinics doing triage for doctors, actually taking care of
about 20% of the patients.
You don't need 8 years of college to patch up wounds, give shots and
hand out a bottle of pills.

That's going to solve our economic woes? Hardly. And, yes our economy and
the heathcare crisis are interlinked.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:32:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"

snip

Send about 5 million people to Navy Corpsman school and set them up in
storefront clinics doing triage for doctors, actually taking care of
about 20% of the patients.
You don't need 8 years of college to patch up wounds, give shots and
hand out a bottle of pills.

I think that's why PAs are becoming popular, at least here in Florida.

Harry wrote:
On 12/26/09 10:20 PM, 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


Debate? With a worthless piece of **** like you? What's the point? You
don't know anything. You don't stand for anything. You're just an
argumentative, nasty piece of right-wing ****. You were more likable
when you pretended to be freddy krueger's brother.


I will carry on lively debate with anyone who is 100% with me on the
issues. My past performances prove it. So come on. Anyone who hates bush
and Palin, lets debate.

--

It's flattering to see so many of you turds spoofing me.

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 Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:40:43 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

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.

Tim's a closet Commie - Tim's a closet Commie. :)