"anon-e-moose" wrote in message
...
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.

Stabilize and ship out. That's all a for profit hospital is required to
do.


And you think that's going to solve the healthcare problem... dumping people
on the street after they're "stable."

--
Nom=de=Plume

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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"anon-e-moose" wrote in message
...
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.

There you go with those wild , exaggerated, if not false claims again. For
all we know, you could be Pee Wee Herman. The only thing you have said
about yourself that is even somewhat believable is that you drive a really
old rusted out F150.


Fortunately, I don't give a rat's behind what you think. And, it's an F-100,
which I don't really drive all that much.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
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"


I really wish you hadn't told him.... you can't trust anyone on usenet

--
Nom=de=Plume

"JTEM" wrote in message
...
anon-e-moose wrote:
wrote:
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 that dumb ass bitch read the mission statement. Doesn't that count
for anything?

Ignore that **** for now, Jim. She's getting the best of us.
Back off until another thread starts and we'll try again.
**** around with slammer for a while.
I don't see the calculator instructions you said you'd send me in my
email. Did you send that? And send me the real stimulus numbers I
should use. That asshole spoofing you said my numbers are off.



"getting the best of us" ??? that ship sailed.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"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!

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:36:30 -0800, "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.


OK so you got the Wikipedia spin. The real answer is the NIH is a
conduit for federal grants. Most of what they do is to distribute
money around to anyone who can write a decent grant request.
Unfortunately that is not the most efficient way to actually do
research. People who write grant requests keep score based on how big
a grant they can get.
BTW that is what my son in law did for many years (writing grant
requests). Now he is in law school.
The phrase "sister in a whore house" does pop up now and then ;-)


Actually, that's from their own website. If you have a problemw with their
mission statement, you should complain to them.

I always hated writing grant requests. I did that pro bono for a non-profit
but never like it. Law school is tough but doable, esp. if you read fast.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"anon-e-moose" wrote in message
...
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.

Stabilize and ship out. That's all a for profit hospital is required to
do.


And you think that's going to solve the healthcare problem... dumping people
on the street after they're "stable."

Didn't say they were put out on the street. Didn't say it was going to
solve the healthcare problem. Not for profits must accept them. It's the
law baby.
Sheesh, you have quite an imagination. I wonder if you are going a
little heavy on your meds?

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?

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?