in article et, rick etter
at wrote on 11/24/04 11:02 PM:


"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
news:BDCAAD29.1265C%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com...
in article t, rick etter
at wrote on 11/24/04 9:17 PM:


"Keenan Wellar" wrote in
message
news:BDCA9664.12630%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com...
in article G09pd.15037$Gw.11523@trndny09, No Spam at
wrote on 11/24/04 6:43 PM:

Well that is where we will have to agree to disagree.

I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing. I would really like to understand how
George W Bush could be less evil than John Kerry. I mean, I watch George
with one of his little speeches where he makes an obnoxious statement
and
then goes "heh heh heh" with that evil grin....it just gives me the
willies!
====================
But a self-confessed war criminal doesn't phase you at all? Quite a
selective set of knee-jerks you have there, eh?

You mean because Kerry was a soldier in Vietnam?
=====================
No, stupid, because he admitted to participating in, and performing *war
crimes*. Did you miss that little part of his sordid past, or were you
just determined to not hear anything contrary to the 'good feelings' he gave
you?

Yes, I'm aware. The entire US fiasco in Vietnam was a war crime. He's
honest. I know, that's not very presidential.

And he didn't give me "good feelings" actually. He's not very good at that.
That makes him not very electable.

You really think that
equates to making Presidential decisions? It's particularly ironic
considering what Bush was doing while Kerry was in Vietnam.
==================
Pray tell, what would that have been, fool?

Fooling around mostly, yes.

(Oci-One Kanubi)

Typed in Message-ID:

snipCheck out Japan: for 45% of our cost they manage to have 50% of our
infant mortality and a 5% greater life expectancy.

Please note that there are other demographic elements that partial account for
those numbers. If you will note that most of the countries with real low infant
mortality rates are also countries with low immigrant populations and highly
homogenous populations.

The other item to note is that we spend vast amounts on catastrophic care for
terminal patients, especially elderly cancer and heart patients. Is that true
in the socialized medicine countries?

The real problem is that corporate paid insurance has disconnected medical care
from market values. Here is an example of what I'm talking about. Suppose that
instead of health insurance you had grocery insurance. Now when you go to the
store, since your cost is the same whether you are frugal or not, are you going
to buy the chicken or ribeye steak?
Most people will by the ribeye, and stick to the brand names instead of
shopping for their best value.

In my industry there a many, if not most that are self insured. One client of
mine required a minor but costly surgery that he would have to pay a good
portion of out of his own pocket. He actually shopped his doctors and hospitals
and found that by having the procedure done at a smaller hospital about 30
miles away, he saved half on the procedure. Have anyone else here ever done
that? We shop for value in are cars and boats, but go the the most expensive
doctors.


SYOTR
Larry C.

On 25-Nov-2004, ospam (Larry Cable) wrote:

The other item to note is that we spend vast amounts on catastrophic care for
terminal patients, especially elderly cancer and heart patients. Is that true
in the socialized medicine countries?

No - we just stick the elderly on ice flows and let the polar bears eat them.

I think one reason for higher costs in the US is that there are no limits set
by anyone other than the doctors. Also, second (and third...) opinions seem
more common in the US.

OTOH, in Canada, people are more likely to get treatment since it's not an
out of pocket cost. Hence better pre- and neo-natal care.

If you compare auto accident statistics between Canada and the US, you'll
see very similar death rates but higher injury rates in Canada. Since the
latter are determined by hospital visits, they show that Canadians are more
likely to visit the doctor after an accident than in the US, since there's
no incremental cost. This may, however, avoid later costs for untreated
injuries.

Most people will by the ribeye, and stick to the brand names instead of
shopping for their best value.

In Canada, the doctors vet patient care and do not encourage frivolous spending.
Health care dollars are limited and must be used judiciously. Just because it's
socialized doesn't mean it's unlimited.

BTW, it's a myth that all health care in Canada is publically funded. You can
buy health care for certain things and other things are not covered. Example:
a friend of mine chose to pay for cataract surgery instead of waiting on a list
for several months. That also allowed her to get special lenses inserted which
provided complete vision correction so she no longer wears glasses. The special
lenses weren't covered by government.

No one can stop you from crossing the border to the US to buy other care.

Mike

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
m...
Wilko wrote in message
...
Tinkerntom wrote:

Hi, my Dutch friend Wilko, and I mean that sincerely.

Tinkerntom, to call someone my friend, I need to like someone a lot,
feel that I want to respect them, and I require them to respect me. I
don't take friendship lightly. I don't feel the need to make many
friends, IMO quality means a lot more than quantity in that respect,
although I tend to be in touch with a decent amount of people.


I again apolgize though, for overall, I find you all however
disparate, a noble band of brothers, and worthy of friendship. Do I
know you well, no, but I am sure we will get to know each other
better, given time, so I extend the hand of friendship. We all need as
many friends as we can get. There needs to be fewer, lower walls
between us. That is true Internationalism, we are all on that all to
small life boat, called Earth. That is also true environmentalism, for
if we don't know how to get along together, what difference will it
make if we save all the trees and rivers and wildplaces, if I could
only experience them alone.

Well, I'm with Wilko on this one, Tom. Justify yourself how you want to, and
extend all the metaphorical hands you want; the flavor of your posts as well
as the timbre of you online voice are patronizing and minimizing, and can
easily be felt as offensive. Even your response to Wilko's uncompromising
honesty above was met with patronization. How can you reply that he is 'your
friend' if the feeling is clearly not reciprocated? If it is truly your
voice and character, then I wonder how well you will do here. And if this is
by design, then it won't float for long. We will see; its certainly not up
to me.

Leaving the political differences aside (if that is even possible), this is
still primarily a boating forum, where people swap stories and learn from
each other. In order to be receptive to learning about boating, the same
framework has to exist that is conducive for friendship: mutual acceptance
and respect, honesty, a touch of appropriate humility, and a open, receptive
manner. If people percieve someone as an argumentative baiter, someone who
sets their own rules for their own and other's discussions, then that person
might very well find their contributions or responses to boating questions
compromised. If you come slicing into an eddy and trash several boaters,
don't be suprised if they refuse to cover your line in the next drop.

You challenged me as wanting to be a SuperGuru. I'm not a Guru, Tom. I'm a
contrubutor to rbp. Regardless of what you may feel about me because of our
political differences, Tom, the truth is that I do have very extensive
canoeing experience in many environments, a very conscientious safety
record, and have enjoyed working and paddling recreationally with many folks
over the past 3 decades, some of whom are on this newsgroup. And I am happy
to contribute my experience and insights, and which are recieved in exactly
the manner that they are intended. For you to offer several times to 'meet
me for a cup of coffee' might be a syncophatic fawning or an honest offering
of an olive branch, but in truth it seems rather hollow, with me being in
Congo.

I will continue working on understanding who you are and why you made the
type of arrival in rbp as you did, as that will certainly underscore the
nature of our online relationship. But if you truly want to be a welcome
contributor here, and more importantly, if you truly want to be a recipient
of the wealth of info, insights, knowledge and camaraderie that is available
here, you will listen to what Wilko, myself, and others are telling you.

Respectfully, and with all sincerity:
--riverman

"Michael Daly"

Typed in Message-ID:

The other item to note is that we spend vast amounts on catastrophic care
for
terminal patients, especially elderly cancer and heart patients. Is that
true
in the socialized medicine countries?

No - we just stick the elderly on ice flows and let the polar bears eat them.


In Canada, the doctors vet patient care and do not encourage frivolous
spending.
Health care dollars are limited and must be used judiciously. Just because
it's
socialized doesn't mean it's unlimited.

I asked a real question and you seem to give two different replies. Would a
doctor in Canada spend thousands or tens of thousands to extend the life of a
terminally ill patient? If they do ration health care, is this one of the
areas that they save? Remember, here they spend hundreds of thousands to give
liver transplants to 70 year old alcoholics.

The general complaint of socialized medicine is that it does become a scarce
commodity.

Second and third opinions are a result of sometimes frivolous legal suits in
the US.
SYOTR
Larry C.

: "Michael Daly"

There are several causes of that high infant mortality rate in the US.
One of the most significant is that fact that health care is only
available to those that can afford it. Since low-income women tend
to have higher birth rates than wealthy women, many births don't
come with adequate health care. Pre-natal care is especially lackin

ng
and care in the first year is poor.

Mike

That isn't particularly true. There are several programs available to low
income women free of charge though the Health departments and other sources,
such as WIC, which provides food vouchers for low income pregnant women or
women with young children.

The simple fact is that a person can walk into any hospital in the US and they
are required by law to treat that person regardless of the ability to pay. This
isn't any unknown fact among the poor.

I would suggest that age of the mother and general health and nutrition is
probably more of a factor than lack of access to medical care.
SYOTR
Larry C.

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
. ..

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 24-Nov-2004, "Keenan Wellar" wrote:

I can't think of any other
country where the sexual habits of the president would be more important
than the waging of war.

Well, that's the same country that enshrines guns in the Constitution
but considers a woman's bare breast to be a threat to children.

Mike

Ooo. That's a good one.

Also there's the opposition to stem cell research but support for the
death penalty.

Saw a CNN poll yesterday where 80% of the population thought it was OK for
gays and lesbians to serve in the military, but 55% thought that same-sex
marriages ought to be illegal.

--riverman

"Larry Cable" wrote in message
...
(Oci-One Kanubi)

Typed in Message-ID:

snipCheck out Japan: for 45% of our cost they manage to have 50% of our
infant mortality and a 5% greater life expectancy.

Please note that there are other demographic elements that partial account
for
those numbers. If you will note that most of the countries with real low
infant
mortality rates are also countries with low immigrant populations and
highly
homogenous populations.

Umm, that boat won't float. What you said (if a country has low immigration
rates and homogenous populations, it has low IMR), implies that the
contrapositive is true, specifically that if a country has high IMR, it
should have high immigration rates and heterogenous population). Yet, none
of the top 30 infant-mortality rate countries meet those standards.

178.Madagascar 80.21deaths/1,000 live births
179.Azerbaijan 82.41deaths/1,000 live births
180.Lesotho 86.21deaths/1,000 live births
181.Benin 86.76deaths/1,000 live births
182.Uganda 87.90deaths/1,000 live births
183.Laos 88.94deaths/1,000 live births
184.Equatorial Guinea 89.02deaths/1,000 live births
185.Central African Republic 93.30deaths/1,000 live births
186.Guinea 93.30deaths/1,000 live births
187.Congo, Republic of the 95.34deaths/1,000 live births
188.Chad 95.74deaths/1,000 live births
189.Congo, Democratic Republic of the 96.56deaths/1,000 live births
190.Cote d'Ivoire 98.33deaths/1,000 live births
191.Zambia 99.29deaths/1,000 live births
192.Burkina Faso 99.78deaths/1,000 live births
193.Rwanda 102.61deaths/1,000 live births
194.Ethiopia 103.22deaths/1,000 live births
195.Tanzania 103.68deaths/1,000 live births
196.Bhutan 104.68deaths/1,000 live births
197.Malawi 105.15deaths/1,000 live births
198.Djibouti 106.96deaths/1,000 live births
199.Guinea-Bissau 110.29deaths/1,000 live births
200.Tajikistan 113.43deaths/1,000 live births
201.Mali 119.20deaths/1,000 live births
202.Somalia 120.34deaths/1,000 live births
203.Niger 123.64deaths/1,000 live births
204.Liberia 132.18deaths/1,000 live births
205.Afghanistan 142.48deaths/1,000 live births
206.Sierra Leone 146.86deaths/1,000 live births
207.Angola 193.82deaths/1,000 live births
208.Mozambique 199.00deaths/1,000 live births

These guys all have low immigration, and very homogenous populations.

I got no bone to pick with the rest of your post. :-)

--riverman


The other item to note is that we spend vast amounts on catastrophic care
for
terminal patients, especially elderly cancer and heart patients. Is that
true
in the socialized medicine countries?

The real problem is that corporate paid insurance has disconnected medical
care
from market values. Here is an example of what I'm talking about. Suppose
that
instead of health insurance you had grocery insurance. Now when you go to
the
store, since your cost is the same whether you are frugal or not, are you
going
to buy the chicken or ribeye steak?
Most people will by the ribeye, and stick to the brand names instead of
shopping for their best value.

In my industry there a many, if not most that are self insured. One client
of
mine required a minor but costly surgery that he would have to pay a good
portion of out of his own pocket. He actually shopped his doctors and
hospitals
and found that by having the procedure done at a smaller hospital about 30
miles away, he saved half on the procedure. Have anyone else here ever
done
that? We shop for value in are cars and boats, but go the the most
expensive
doctors.


SYOTR
Larry C.

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
. ..

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 24-Nov-2004, "Keenan Wellar" wrote:

I can't think of any other
country where the sexual habits of the president would be more
important
than the waging of war.

Well, that's the same country that enshrines guns in the Constitution
but considers a woman's bare breast to be a threat to children.

Mike

Ooo. That's a good one.

Also there's the opposition to stem cell research but support for the
death penalty.

Saw a CNN poll yesterday where 80% of the population thought it was OK for
gays and lesbians to serve in the military, but 55% thought that same-sex
marriages ought to be illegal.

--riverman

Hunh.

Newsflash to the 20%...gays and lesbians are already serving in the
military, they just serve their country living in fear that they'll be
"outed" for being who they are.

Newsflash to the 55%...the times they are a-changin'. You managed to get
used to black people sitting at both ends of the bus, you'll live through
this too.

"riverman"

typed in Message-ID:

These guys all have low immigration, and very homogenous populations.

I got no bone to pick with the rest of your post. :-)

--riverman

Alright, let me qualify that remark. In industrialized nations, countries with
low immigration tend to have lower infant mortality. Happy now :^).
SYOTR
Larry C.