![]() |
|
obama's stimulus works at creating jobs
wrote in message
... On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:58:37 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The thing that bothers me is they still have not addressed that. If the government really wanted to cut health care costs they would be setting up low cost store front clinics staffed by paramedics and medical techs to handle minor injuries and ailments. A lot of drugs should be able to be dispensed by pharmacists without prescription. They are doing nothing to actually cut the cost of care with any bill I have seen. They all seem to just be subsidizing billionaire medical conglomerates and insurance companies with tax payer money. That's one thing that could be done, but the bigger problem is prevention, e.g., heart attacks and other life-threatening, but preventable conditions. We need a coverage for all people that include preventative care. Most of the prevention for those things do not require a doctor, they require some self restraint and a little activity from the patient. Untrue for lots and lots of things. High blood pressure for example requires that the patient get tested and then monitored carefully. Cancer, regular checkups find all sorts of things. Basically step away from the doughnuts, put out the cigarette and take a walk. Michelle Obama seems to be taking that on but she is not getting much help from the media. They sell doughnuts (fast food, potato chips, candy etc) and you can't watch TV if you are out on a walk. Yes, obesity is a huge (no pun intended) problem. -- Nom=de=Plume |
obama's stimulus works at creating jobs
"anon-e-moose" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: "anon-e-moose" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:11:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Private companies do a lot more than NIH. I only have to point to the human genome project where a private company cracked the code in months and NIH dunced around for years on it. No they don't. The NIH is not tasked with things in so narrow of a focus. Go to their website and read their mission statement. I worked at NIH for several years (IBM). I know the culture But, the NIH doesn't have as it's mission to make a profit. "The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is the primary Federal agency for conducting and supporting medical research. Helping to lead the way toward important medical discoveries that improve people's health and save lives, NIH scientists investigate ways to prevent disease as well as the causes, treatments, and even cures for common and rare diseases. Composed of 27 Institutes and Centers, the NIH provides leadership and financial support to researchers in every state and throughout the world." There are several here, perhaps you included, who would rather have it be either a profit center or be for profit. I think I'll stick with them the way they are, all faults included. Greed motivates. Accepting handouts (financial support), in no way motivates people to complete projects or accomplish anything. You seem to be stuck on stupid. Greed is not good when it comes to public health! Oh really? What motivation does a union public healthcare worker have to deliver quality healthcare? Union public health worker??? We're talking about the NIH. Check out the mission statement again. -- Nom=de=Plume |
obama's stimulus works at creating jobs
wrote in message
... On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:28:28 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:58:37 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The thing that bothers me is they still have not addressed that. If the government really wanted to cut health care costs they would be setting up low cost store front clinics staffed by paramedics and medical techs to handle minor injuries and ailments. A lot of drugs should be able to be dispensed by pharmacists without prescription. They are doing nothing to actually cut the cost of care with any bill I have seen. They all seem to just be subsidizing billionaire medical conglomerates and insurance companies with tax payer money. That's one thing that could be done, but the bigger problem is prevention, e.g., heart attacks and other life-threatening, but preventable conditions. We need a coverage for all people that include preventative care. Most of the prevention for those things do not require a doctor, they require some self restraint and a little activity from the patient. Untrue for lots and lots of things. High blood pressure for example requires that the patient get tested and then monitored carefully. Cancer, regular checkups find all sorts of things. You still don't need 8 years of training to monitor blood pressure. I think a lot of this blood pressure thing is driven by the drug companies that sell the pills. I am a little sensitive about this because blood pressure medicine killed my mother. She had the "white fright" problem and her resting blood pressure was in the 90/60 range in spite of regularly blowing a 190/100 at the doctor's office. It went down hill from there. Basically step away from the doughnuts, put out the cigarette and take a walk. Michelle Obama seems to be taking that on but she is not getting much help from the media. They sell doughnuts (fast food, potato chips, candy etc) and you can't watch TV if you are out on a walk. Yes, obesity is a huge (no pun intended) problem. Monitoring isn't the problem. Lots of people can't get it under control without medicine and it needs to be monitored closely. I'm sorry for your mom. Diabetes is another silent killer. It's not just getting tested.. it's regular monitoring and checkups. There are a host of others. That's why docs go through so many years of training. Nurses and Physician Assistants can do some of it, certainly. But, they can't do al lot of it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
obama's stimulus works at creating jobs
|
obama's stimulus works at creating jobs
On 24/02/2010 12:34 PM, anon-e-moose wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:18:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "CalifBill" wrote in message ... "bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:59:51 -0800, "Bill McKee" wrote: Well said. We have felt very little pain from this economy melt down. Yes the 10-20% unemployed, but most have unemploymnent insurance, actually many don't. about 1M are set to lose it. and what about their health insurance which they don't have? The stimulus you love, will make sure all of them are employed. If they have no assets, the taxpayers will pay their medical bills. No one "loves" the stim, but it helped. Your claim is ridiculous on the face of it. I guess you're unaware of how ERs work. They treat you with or without insurance. If you don't have it, the taxpayer pays. That's the most expensive way to treat people. The thing that bothers me is they still have not addressed that. If the government really wanted to cut health care costs they would be setting up low cost store front clinics staffed by paramedics and medical techs to handle minor injuries and ailments. A lot of drugs should be able to be dispensed by pharmacists without prescription. They are doing nothing to actually cut the cost of care with any bill I have seen. They all seem to just be subsidizing billionaire medical conglomerates and insurance companies with tax payer money. That's one thing that could be done, but the bigger problem is prevention, e.g., heart attacks and other life-threatening, but preventable conditions. We need a coverage for all people that include preventative care. Put a $10 tax on a pack of cigs. Who would argue with that? Don't forget the tax on liquer and beer. Say a 40 oz Jim Beam, $55 and 12 pack of regular beer, $30. When you buy a boat, 15% taxes on it, the vehicle and everything in them. Gas is 50% higher... Also jack total deductions off your pay check to 45%. And ever time you turn around, government will justify higher taxes in the name of health care and spend it on something else. And they will cite deterioring services and longer lineups while they syphon government profit in higher and higher percentages. And not a damned thing you can do about it as you have for practical purposes lost the liberty to choose. Americans should do what it takes to stop it cold. Just like thy do in UK and Canada.... |
obama's stimulus works at creating jobs
|
obama's stimulus works at creating jobs
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 24/02/2010 9:51 AM, wrote: On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:49:30 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog wrote: And just what in the heavens is a "Nom=de=Plume?" French for "pen name" Also to hid his or her gender, likely a guy playing like a girl. Tranny man maybe. Well, you're certainly an expert regarding a guy playing like a girl. -- Nom=de=Plume |
obama's stimulus works at creating jobs
On Feb 24, 10:51*am, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:49:30 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog wrote: And just what in the heavens is a "Nom=de=Plume?" French for "pen name" Oui, je parle français et comprends Nom de Plume la signification. Merveille I qui D'Plume le blâme d'autres pour l'usage d'un faux nommé, pourtant fait également. Un hypocrite ! |
obama's stimulus works at creating jobs
On Feb 24, 12:19*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"TopBassDog" wrote in message ... On Feb 23, 11:37 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Drop dead you little coward (metaphorically of course). You're not man enough even to post under your real name, unlike him. -- Nom=de=Plume And just what in the heavens is a "Nom=de=Plume?" When you were younger were you called 'Nommie?" I'm a woman and I don't need stalkers such as yourself. Were you ever mistaken for a man? If so, by whom? -- Nom=de=Plume You're a woman? Since when? |
obama's stimulus works at creating jobs
TopBassDog wrote:
On Feb 24, 12:19 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "TopBassDog" wrote in message ... On Feb 23, 11:37 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Drop dead you little coward (metaphorically of course). You're not man enough even to post under your real name, unlike him. -- Nom=de=Plume And just what in the heavens is a "Nom=de=Plume?" When you were younger were you called 'Nommie?" I'm a woman and I don't need stalkers such as yourself. Were you ever mistaken for a man? If so, by whom? -- Nom=de=Plume You're a woman? Since when? By God, you told her! Keep up the good work. Lib - Always whining about stalkers, and getting the crap beat out of them by smart men with wit. |
obama's stimulus works at creating jobs
wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:34:34 -0500, anon-e-moose wrote: That's one thing that could be done, but the bigger problem is prevention, e.g., heart attacks and other life-threatening, but preventable conditions. We need a coverage for all people that include preventative care. Put a $10 tax on a pack of cigs. Who would argue with that? The smokers and the people who try to enforce it. At a certain point we may see another drug war with untaxed cigarettes causing gun fights in the street. They just need to make the profit incentive high enough. I doubt demand will go away. This is supposed to be a free country. If someone wants to abuse themselves, let them. Maybe require they carry insurance to pay for their injuries, instead of the rest of us. Drugs were not a problem until the profit got so astronomical that it paid to get someone hooked. |
obama's stimulus works at creating jobs
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:34:34 -0500, anon-e-moose wrote: That's one thing that could be done, but the bigger problem is prevention, e.g., heart attacks and other life-threatening, but preventable conditions. We need a coverage for all people that include preventative care. Put a $10 tax on a pack of cigs. Who would argue with that? The smokers and the people who try to enforce it. At a certain point we may see another drug war with untaxed cigarettes causing gun fights in the street. They just need to make the profit incentive high enough. I doubt demand will go away. This is supposed to be a free country. If someone wants to abuse themselves, let them. Maybe require they carry insurance to pay for their injuries, instead of the rest of us. Drugs were not a problem until the profit got so astronomical that it paid to get someone hooked. Require them? Sounds like big gov't to me. -- Nom=de=Plume |
obama's stimulus works at creating jobs
"TopBassDog" wrote in message
... On Feb 24, 12:19 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "TopBassDog" wrote in message ... On Feb 23, 11:37 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Drop dead you little coward (metaphorically of course). You're not man enough even to post under your real name, unlike him. -- Nom=de=Plume And just what in the heavens is a "Nom=de=Plume?" When you were younger were you called 'Nommie?" I'm a woman and I don't need stalkers such as yourself. Were you ever mistaken for a man? If so, by whom? -- Nom=de=Plume You're a woman? Since when? You're a man? Are you still sore from the operation? -- Nom=de=Plume |
obama's stimulus works at creating jobs
"TopBassDog" wrote in message
... On Feb 24, 10:51 am, wrote: On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:49:30 -0800 (PST), TopBassDog wrote: And just what in the heavens is a "Nom=de=Plume?" French for "pen name" Oui, je parle français et comprends Nom de Plume la signification. Merveille I qui D'Plume le blâme d'autres pour l'usage d'un faux nommé, pourtant fait également. Un hypocrite ! You also speak stupid, apparently. -- Nom=de=Plume |
obama's stimulus works at creating jobs
On 2/25/10 5:16 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On Feb 24, 12:19 am, wrote: wrote in message ... On Feb 23, 11:37 pm, wrote: Drop dead you little coward (metaphorically of course). You're not man enough even to post under your real name, unlike him. -- Nom=de=Plume And just what in the heavens is a "Nom=de=Plume?" When you were younger were you called 'Nommie?" I'm a woman and I don't need stalkers such as yourself. Were you ever mistaken for a man? If so, by whom? -- Nom=de=Plume You're a woman? Since when? You're a man? Are you still sore from the operation? Nom - why do you even bother with "bass," jim, herring, jack, Bruce, and the rest of the pack of retarded right-wing misogynists? Consider just letting them wallow in their own effluent. |
obama's stimulus works at creating jobs
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:34:34 -0500, anon-e-moose wrote: That's one thing that could be done, but the bigger problem is prevention, e.g., heart attacks and other life-threatening, but preventable conditions. We need a coverage for all people that include preventative care. Put a $10 tax on a pack of cigs. Who would argue with that? The smokers and the people who try to enforce it. At a certain point we may see another drug war with untaxed cigarettes causing gun fights in the street. They just need to make the profit incentive high enough. I doubt demand will go away. This is supposed to be a free country. If someone wants to abuse themselves, let them. Maybe require they carry insurance to pay for their injuries, instead of the rest of us. Drugs were not a problem until the profit got so astronomical that it paid to get someone hooked. Require them? Sounds like big gov't to me. -- Nom=de=Plume Nope. You do not have insurance to cover your self imposed ills. You die. |
obama's stimulus works at creating jobs
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:34:34 -0500, anon-e-moose wrote: That's one thing that could be done, but the bigger problem is prevention, e.g., heart attacks and other life-threatening, but preventable conditions. We need a coverage for all people that include preventative care. Put a $10 tax on a pack of cigs. Who would argue with that? The smokers and the people who try to enforce it. At a certain point we may see another drug war with untaxed cigarettes causing gun fights in the street. They just need to make the profit incentive high enough. I doubt demand will go away. This is supposed to be a free country. If someone wants to abuse themselves, let them. Maybe require they carry insurance to pay for their injuries, instead of the rest of us. Drugs were not a problem until the profit got so astronomical that it paid to get someone hooked. Require them? Sounds like big gov't to me. -- Nom=de=Plume Nope. You do not have insurance to cover your self imposed ills. You die. You said, "Maybe require they carry insurance...." So, were you just lying? -- Nom=de=Plume |
obama's stimulus works at creating jobs
wrote in message
... On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:16:09 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message news:_7ednXcdOIKRWhvWnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink. com... wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:34:34 -0500, anon-e-moose wrote: That's one thing that could be done, but the bigger problem is prevention, e.g., heart attacks and other life-threatening, but preventable conditions. We need a coverage for all people that include preventative care. Put a $10 tax on a pack of cigs. Who would argue with that? The smokers and the people who try to enforce it. At a certain point we may see another drug war with untaxed cigarettes causing gun fights in the street. They just need to make the profit incentive high enough. I doubt demand will go away. This is supposed to be a free country. If someone wants to abuse themselves, let them. Maybe require they carry insurance to pay for their injuries, instead of the rest of us. Drugs were not a problem until the profit got so astronomical that it paid to get someone hooked. Require them? Sounds like big gov't to me. I am willing to bet that your average smoker has a lower lifetime health care cost than a non-smoker. They die sooner and don't get all the late life care. It is certainly better for Medicare since they are not on it as long. Some never make it at all. Heh... I have no objection your honor. I know, that's mean, but I hate second-hand smoke. -- Nom=de=Plume |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:37 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com