On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:08:56 -0500, RLM wrote:

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.

My point was made with my post.

Looks like the Obama 'death panels' are here after all, doesn't it?

Nice attempt to hijack though!

WADS!
--

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 12/28/09 8:25 AM, John H wrote:

Looks like the Obama 'death panels' are here after all, doesn't it?



Your relatives called...they want to know where to sign you up for a
death panel visit. Everyone is chipping in...

Harry wrote:
On 12/28/09 8:25 AM, John H wrote:

Looks like the Obama 'death panels' are here after all, doesn't it?



Your relatives called...they want to know where to sign you up for a
death panel visit. Everyone is chipping in...

My god, you are a funny duck. What is this obsession with Herring. Does
he give you a woodie?

--

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

On Dec 27, 7:24*pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:
"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!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Counseling has been in the plan for a very long time.

On Dec 27, 7:22*pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:
"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.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:28:57 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:21:20 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

So is "the pursuit of happiness" (driving make me happy) but that is
a
goal, not a protected right.

As long as that happiness doesn't intrude on others. And, yes, it's a
goal.
A good one. One that makes sense morally and fiscally. Your happiness
in
driving your car, isn't even close to the same thing.

Why not? What if driving my car was a condition of my employment.

Which has little to do with "happiness" as described.

Keeping my job would make me happy but happiness should include
driving because you like to drive..

The point is you lefties are real quick to quibble about my right to
bear arms, parsing a comma in a passage that says "the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged" but you make up
rights that don't exist.

Give me a break. Suddenly, when you run out of logical argument, you
claim
it's the lefties taking your guns. I guess you forgot about the recent
Supreme Court ruling.

I also know the DC government is defying that ruling.

It's being litigated. Are you claiming that you don't think the courts
will
uphold a Supreme Court ruling?

What is being litigated is the DC government's failure to follow the
Heller ruling. The courts have already made the ruling, the DC
government is ignoring it.

You seem to think Wikipedia is the I-Ching, read this,particularly the
last page. It is what is happening in DC


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquiescence



It just says "Promote the general welfare", it says nothing about
"providing" it..

So, how is ignoring 40 million without healthcare promotion?

They are not ignored. If they are really poor they get medicaid and
the current bills are extending that to 133?% or 150% of the federally
defined poverty level.

And what about the people who are working who aren't offered coverage and
who can't afford it on their own??????

Car or medical insurance ;-)
In real life the poverty level is set high enough where most of the
people you are talking about qualify for medicaid.
Perhaps some people just need to reevaluate their priorities.
One of the points made in the legislation is a way to bring down the
cost is to make everyone buy insurance, whether they think they can
afford it or not.


For that matter, "privacy" is not guaranteed either.
I suppose the founding fathers didn't foresee the internet and the
wire tap.

Sure... sounds like you're in favor of restricting women's rights.
That's
the typical argument. Your right to have a gun is ok, but a woman's
right
to
have control over her own body isn't. Insurance covers Viagra.


You would be wrong, I am pro choice

In that case, what's your problem with regulating the ownership of guns?
Are
you afraid Obama will knock on your door?

This is not about me particularly but the fear is not that Obama will
knock on your door, they are afraid of a BATF sniper shooting their
unarmed wife who was carrying a deadly baby. (Randy Weaver)

Ruby Ridge... Do you think it's at all possible that human beings make
mistakes? Do you seriously believe it's a conspiracy?

This was all over loaning a BATF informant a hacksaw and then showing
him how to use it.
In case you think this was justifiable,. this is what the review board
says
"The Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility Ruby
Ridge Task Force Report (10 June 1994) stated in section I. Executive
Summary subhead B. Significant Findings that the second shot did not
satisfy constitutional standards for legal use of deadly force. That
review also found the lack of a request to surrender was
"inexcusable", since Harris and the two Weavers were running for cover
without returning fire and were not an imminent threat."

We don't fear government per se, it is government run amok that
troubles us.
The same ones you gripe about when the NSA is sniffing packets from
your Email but nobody died from a government wiretap.




--
Nom=de=Plume

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:19:46 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

On Dec 28, 1:09*pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article a8e218c8-4ede-497f-937c-a4e158ccb983
@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...







On Dec 27, 11:52 am, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:48:18 -0500, wrote:

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

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.

I was complaining about the Bush/Clinton/Bush war long before it
became Obama's war. Is that the spending you are talking about?

Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is doing
it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate.

I think this is the correct loogic.

"Loogic", I like it...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try this. Ask the liar where I EVER said such. I know he won't
apologize for his out and out lie, Harry doesn't either.

Yeah, but Loogic works, it's a new word. It is when someone uses the
idea of proving a negative as proof soemthing exists in the first place.
It's like asking "did you beat your wife last night", or asking Harry
about his Lobsta' boat as a method of debate...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Show me ONE PLACE where I've asked someone to prove a negative. If you
are talking about when Bill stated that something was NOT the cause of
global warming and I asked him to prove that, that's not a negative.
Bill stated that as FACT. And John DID lie about me.

So show me the quoted lie. Otherwise STFU.
--

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 Dec 28, 11:11*am, Harry wrote:
On 12/28/09 11:05 AM, Loogypicker wrote:





On Dec 27, 11:52 am, I am
wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:48:18 -0500, wrote:

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

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.

I was complaining about the Bush/Clinton/Bush war long before it
became Obama's war. Is that the spending you are talking about?

Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is doing
it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate.

I think this is the correct loogic.

"Loogic", I like it...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try this. Ask the liar where I EVER said such. I know he won't
apologize for his out and out lie, Harry doesn't either.

You, loogy, are an out an out lie. You don't have a boat, you don't have
a college degree, you aren't a licensed engineer. Most likely, you are a
shut-in with a miserable little existence. You are the Atlanta
counterpart of your good buddy justhate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This from the basement dweller......

On 12/28/09 3:54 PM, Loogypicker wrote:
On Dec 28, 11:11 am, wrote:

You, loogy, are an out an out lie. You don't have a boat, you don't have
a college degree, you aren't a licensed engineer. Most likely, you are a
shut-in with a miserable little existence. You are the Atlanta
counterpart of your good buddy justhate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This from the basement dweller...

Just as we suspected...you have no boat, no degree, no engineering
license. Just like your buddy justhate.

On Dec 28, 3:22*pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:19:46 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:09 pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article a8e218c8-4ede-497f-937c-a4e158ccb983
@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 27, 11:52 am, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:48:18 -0500, wrote:

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

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.

I was complaining about the Bush/Clinton/Bush war long before it
became Obama's war. Is that the spending you are talking about?

Just because it was bad then doesn't mean it's bad now. Obama is doing
it now, therefore it's a good thing. He's just emulating a bad
precedent, but since it *is* a precedent, it's a good thing to
emulate.

I think this is the correct loogic.

"Loogic", I like it...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try this. Ask the liar where I EVER said such. I know he won't
apologize for his out and out lie, Harry doesn't either.

Yeah, but Loogic works, it's a new word. It is when someone uses the
idea of proving a negative as proof soemthing exists in the first place.
It's like asking "did you beat your wife last night", or asking Harry
about his Lobsta' boat as a method of debate...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Show me ONE PLACE where I've asked someone to prove a negative. If you
are talking about when Bill stated that something was NOT the cause of
global warming and I asked him to prove that, that's not a negative.
Bill stated that as FACT. And John DID lie about me.

So show me the quoted lie. Otherwise STFU.
--

John H

Here you go, are you going to apologize now? I'm guessing not, Harry
on the unhinged left side doesn't either. Notice, "according to
Loogy"? Where did I state that?

"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."