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

"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

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:48:37 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:17:11 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:58:27 -0500, wrote:


You really have to get over this obsession with Bush.

say what?

we got whole groups of folks here who think bush had no control over
the economy for 8 years...was all clinton's fault...but then obama
came in and, on jan 20 of last year, immediately spent a trillion
dollars on his first day in office

Some of us were unhappy with Bust too but we have sense enough not to
blame him for all of it.

and some of them blame obama for all of it.

bush is responsible for about 70% of the deficit.

wrote in message
news
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

On 24/02/2010 9:40 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:18:12 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

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.

Now you see why government wants in, all that money....

Control the costs by lowering the services and then funnel the rest to
more corruption spending. And the best part, with government you don't
have the option of changing. Assures the government a hefty new stream
of income.

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....

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.

"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

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 !

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?