wrote:


"LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" sounds like a
constitutional guarantee to me.

Nope. That phrase is from the Declaration of Independence, which has no legal
force at all. -- Doug

wrote:
It depends on what YOU call pork. A new road by my house may be pork to
you but a new road by your house probably won't be pork to you, visa versa.

A road by someone's house usually isn't pork. A Woodstock Museum is pork.

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
That's an easy one to answer. The government doesn't *want* you to
have insurance. They want you to have "free" medical care, no
matter what it costs.

No. They want you to have what they call "free medical care", which is to
say nothing usable. You could get sex change operations but not cancer
treatment.

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:19:30 GMT, wrote Re 2008
Pres:

Hell, my wife can't even get a bone density scan because insurance won't
pay for it and we have deductibles to pay from her accident that
insurance won't pay. She is being denied treatment because we owe
$10,000 and haven't yet paid it all off yet, work and are citizens. I
guess the answer is to only get hurt or get sick if you have the means
to pay for it? "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ? Not for
all. And we have worked our butts off our entire lives.

Yep, health insurance is almost worthless. The insurance companies
will take you money, but when you have a claim the look for reasons to
deny the claim or cancel the insurance.

Of course there are people who are without insurance by choice. Of
course an inordinate amount of tax money is spent on the health of
illegals aliens, the shiftless and criminals.

Yep, they get all they need.

What about those of us who
have served our country well, worked all of our lives. Maintained a
legal lifestyle and have always tried to do the right thing for
ourselves and our country?

All they get is the shaft.

I can go to the VA but the nearest clinic is
75 miles from me.
I'm not sure if gov't run health care (look at the debacle that IS the
VA) is the answer but something needs to be done. Maybe the ceo's of
these companies need to learn to live on a few billion $ less.

That would be nice.

"LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" sounds like a
constitutional guarantee to me.

You're dreaming there.

clifto wrote:
wrote:
It depends on what YOU call pork. A new road by my house may be pork to
you but a new road by your house probably won't be pork to you, visa versa.

A road by someone's house usually isn't pork. A Woodstock Museum is pork.

Not to me. I was there.

HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

Do you hope to be left to die in the street if catastrophic illness
hits?


Won't happen. As some great worthy said (paraphrasing):

The law, in its majestic equality, prohibits both rich and poor alike from
begging alms on the public way, living under bridges, or sleeping in the
gutter.


The choices a

a) get everybody into a healthcare plan whether they like it or not --
but you don't like that

b) allow/force health care providers to turn away people who can't or
won't pay, ultimately resulting in them dying in the streets -- you
say that won't happen

c) the current system, in which the uninsured are paid for by the
insured in the form of inflated costs resulting from health care
providers treating the uninsured for free -- yet I suspect you
complain about the high cost of health care

Can anybody suggest another?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

Do you hope to be left to die in the street if catastrophic illness
hits?


Won't happen. As some great worthy said (paraphrasing):

The law, in its majestic equality, prohibits both rich and poor
alike from begging alms on the public way, living under bridges, or
sleeping in the gutter.


The choices a

a) get everybody into a healthcare plan whether they like it or not --
but you don't like that

b) allow/force health care providers to turn away people who can't or
won't pay, ultimately resulting in them dying in the streets -- you
say that won't happen

c) the current system, in which the uninsured are paid for by the
insured in the form of inflated costs resulting from health care
providers treating the uninsured for free -- yet I suspect you
complain about the high cost of health care

Can anybody suggest another?

As exists in all 50 states currently: Expand the number of low-income
clinics. They operate on a sliding fee scale.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

wrote:

Hell, my wife can't even get a bone density scan because insurance
won't pay for it and we have deductibles to pay from her accident that
insurance won't pay. She is being denied treatment because we owe
$10,000 and haven't yet paid it all off yet, work and are citizens. I
guess the answer is to only get hurt or get sick if you have the means
to pay for it? "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ? Not for
all. And we have worked our butts off our entire lives.
Of course there are people who are without insurance by choice. Of
course an inordinate amount of tax money is spent on the health of
illegals aliens, the shiftless and criminals. What about those of us
who have served our country well, worked all of our lives. Maintained
a legal lifestyle and have always tried to do the right thing for
ourselves and our country? I can go to the VA but the nearest clinic
is 75 miles from me.

Choices have consequences. You chose to not have your deductible available
in ready cash. You chose to live in a location far from VA facilities.

I live six blocks from a major medical centers. Next to the hospital are two
12-story buildings full of everything from dentists to thoracic surgeons. My
cardiologist has a new $15 million angiogram machine IN HIS OFFICE (it's a
big office)! The hospital next door does about 100 angiograms and
angioplasties A DAY. The VA hospital is about 12 miles away (in city
traffic, it's probably equivalent to fifty).

I'm not sure if gov't run health care (look at the debacle that IS the
VA) is the answer but something needs to be done. Maybe the ceo's of
these companies need to learn to live on a few billion $ less.
"LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" sounds like a
constitutional guarantee to me.

I can't see why the VA medical system can't be converted to an equivalent
insurance scheme. Vets get the same class of care they would at the VA, but
they get to choose any hospital; then it wouldn't matter so much where the
veteran lived.

CJT wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

Do you hope to be left to die in the street if catastrophic illness
hits?


Won't happen. As some great worthy said (paraphrasing):

The law, in its majestic equality, prohibits both rich and poor
alike from begging alms on the public way, living under bridges, or
sleeping in the gutter.


The choices a

a) get everybody into a healthcare plan whether they like it or not --
but you don't like that

b) allow/force health care providers to turn away people who can't or
won't pay, ultimately resulting in them dying in the streets -- you
say that won't happen

c) the current system, in which the uninsured are paid for by the
insured in the form of inflated costs resulting from health care
providers treating the uninsured for free -- yet I suspect you
complain about the high cost of health care

Can anybody suggest another?

Let me turn it around. Just about every conceivable permutation has been
tried or is in use somewhere. Can you find a system that works better for
everyone?

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:26:24 GMT, CJT wrote:


All the Democratic candidates complain there are 47 million people in this
country without health insurance. Assuming there are about 300 million folks
(299,398,484*) in the country, 300 - 47 = 253. My math may be a little off -
it's been quite a while since I was in the 2nd grade. Your numbers may vary.


That's 47 million too many.


So you want to force young people to buy insurance? Fine wirth me,
just don't force me to pay for theirs.

Young people can have severe health problems, too.

Sure, and they can buy insurance too. Are you suggesting that the
MA plan for forced insurance should be national? I'm not so down
on that, but since when is forced health insurance one of the
enumerated powers in the Constitution? Oh, that's right, you
leftists believe the Constitution says whatever you want it to say
today.

--
Keith

In article ,
alt.home.repair, says...
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:46:04 -0600, CJT wrote:

Oren wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:17:19 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


""__ Bøb __"" wrote in message
...

Yeah right .. .. .. if you think health care is expen$ive now .. . just
wait 'till it's "FREE"

I don't know who got this notion of universal health care started, but (my
opinion) you are entitled to the best health care you can afford ..
nothing in the constitution says you get the best for free .. .. ..


You'd change your tune if YOU couldn't afford health care you needed to
survive a catastrophic illness.


Unless; I was an incarcerated felon.

Federal Law and Court rulings; entitle federal prisoners to medical
care at no cost. They line up for Sick Call.

Same as any state system.
Oren
--

So the solution is simple -- advise everybody with a terminal disease
to knock over the nearest 7-11.

I won't hire you as a lawyer; given , you have simple solutions.

A first time offender (white collar/crime?) goes to jail for six month
sentence. first offense - age 62+ AND then his heart bypass $$$$.

No problem. Pass socialized medicine and it'll take a life
sentence just to get in line.

That is where money is wrongly spent.

--
Keith

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
Subject: 2008 Pres
From: JoeSpareBedroom
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair

"krw" wrote in message
t...


I recall that in the early 1970s, when I was in college, I had an ID card
from my dad, for "major medical" coverage. Aetna or some other company. I
paid cash for the little stuff, which was rare, and this coverage was
supposed to kick in for big problems. I tried to find that sort of
coverage
a couple of months ago. Guess what? It's now non-existent in NY State. I
intend to find out why.

That's an easy one to answer. The government doesn't *want* you to
have insurance. They want you to have "free" medical care, no
matter what it costs.

--
Keith


++++++++++++++++++++++++=

Sure. That's logical. zzzzzz.........

Yeah, the terminally stupid have problems with reading
comprehension as well as newsreader operation.

--
Keith

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"CJT" wrote in message
...

HeyBub wrote:


wrote:


the triilons wasted in iraq would likely pay for top notch healthcare
for everyone..

the current system is broke, something better should be created.

if someone with no health coverage shows up at the ER with a life
threatening trouble they get cared for too. cant have them dying in
the waiting room......

such care can cost big bucks and earlier treatement may have saved
lots of money.,


if the government quit wasting money on pork projects we could
probably afford good health care for everyone


Comments:
1. It's not TRILLIONS for the Iraq war, it's only a few hundred
billion.

Probably more like a trillion if we're honest about all the costs that
will continue (e.g. caring for the tens of thousands of maimed
soldiers).


2. The current system is not broke. About 253 million people (out of
300
million) have health insurance.

cite?




I haven't examined the data here yet. It may or may not support your
point,
or whatever HeySlob claims. Have a look, though.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7553.cfm


45 million non-elderly insured is too many, regardless.

I agree. Going without insurance is foolish.

--
Keith


How much do you pay for health insurance, and in which state do you live?

Enough. Why do you ask?

I'm asking about the total price, not just the part you pay, if your
employer shares the cost.

I'm a contractor. I get no benefits from my "employer".

--
Keith

In article o3zdj.10538$Ux2.5799@attbi_s22, alt.home.repair,
says...
clifto wrote:
wrote:
It depends on what YOU call pork. A new road by my house may be pork to
you but a new road by your house probably won't be pork to you, visa versa.

A road by someone's house usually isn't pork. A Woodstock Museum is pork.

Not to me. I was there.

Another one with a reading comprehension problem. Not all
government expenditures are "pork". Though I'd be against the
federal government paying for either the "Woodstock Museum" or the
road in front of my house, "pork" or not.

--
Keith

clifto wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

That's an easy one to answer. The government doesn't *want* you to
have insurance. They want you to have "free" medical care, no
matter what it costs.


No. They want you to have what they call "free medical care", which is to
say nothing usable. You could get sex change operations but not cancer
treatment.

Where do you get these fantasies? Rush?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"CJT" wrote in message
...

HeyBub wrote:


wrote:


the triilons wasted in iraq would likely pay for top notch
healthcare
for everyone..

the current system is broke, something better should be created.

if someone with no health coverage shows up at the ER with a life
threatening trouble they get cared for too. cant have them dying
in
the waiting room......

such care can cost big bucks and earlier treatement may have saved
lots of money.,


if the government quit wasting money on pork projects we could
probably afford good health care for everyone


Comments:
1. It's not TRILLIONS for the Iraq war, it's only a few hundred
billion.

Probably more like a trillion if we're honest about all the costs
that
will continue (e.g. caring for the tens of thousands of maimed
soldiers).


2. The current system is not broke. About 253 million people (out
of
300
million) have health insurance.

cite?




I haven't examined the data here yet. It may or may not support your
point,
or whatever HeySlob claims. Have a look, though.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7553.cfm


45 million non-elderly insured is too many, regardless.

I agree. Going without insurance is foolish.

--
Keith


How much do you pay for health insurance, and in which state do you live?

Enough. Why do you ask?


Because I want to know. When you come up with an actual number, we can
continue.

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"CJT" wrote in message
...

HeyBub wrote:


wrote:


the triilons wasted in iraq would likely pay for top notch
healthcare
for everyone..

the current system is broke, something better should be created.

if someone with no health coverage shows up at the ER with a life
threatening trouble they get cared for too. cant have them dying
in
the waiting room......

such care can cost big bucks and earlier treatement may have saved
lots of money.,


if the government quit wasting money on pork projects we could
probably afford good health care for everyone


Comments:
1. It's not TRILLIONS for the Iraq war, it's only a few hundred
billion.

Probably more like a trillion if we're honest about all the costs
that
will continue (e.g. caring for the tens of thousands of maimed
soldiers).


2. The current system is not broke. About 253 million people (out
of
300
million) have health insurance.

cite?




I haven't examined the data here yet. It may or may not support your
point,
or whatever HeySlob claims. Have a look, though.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7553.cfm


45 million non-elderly insured is too many, regardless.

I agree. Going without insurance is foolish.

--
Keith


How much do you pay for health insurance, and in which state do you live?

Enough. Why do you ask?


Because I want to know. When you come up with an actual number, we can
continue.

I came up with a number, let's continue;

How much do you make?
How old are you?
How much do you weigh?
What's your bank account number?
What's your SSN?
What's your mother's maiden name?


--
Keith

"clifto" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
That's an easy one to answer. The government doesn't *want* you to
have insurance. They want you to have "free" medical care, no
matter what it costs.

No. They want you to have what they call "free medical care", which is to
say nothing usable. You could get sex change operations but not cancer
treatment.



The government wants us to have whatever the insurance industry tells the
government it wants us to have. If you disagree with this, please come back
on your 14th birthday, and we can continue.

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"CJT" wrote in message
...

HeyBub wrote:


wrote:


the triilons wasted in iraq would likely pay for top notch
healthcare
for everyone..

the current system is broke, something better should be
created.

if someone with no health coverage shows up at the ER with a
life
threatening trouble they get cared for too. cant have them
dying
in
the waiting room......

such care can cost big bucks and earlier treatement may have
saved
lots of money.,


if the government quit wasting money on pork projects we could
probably afford good health care for everyone


Comments:
1. It's not TRILLIONS for the Iraq war, it's only a few hundred
billion.

Probably more like a trillion if we're honest about all the costs
that
will continue (e.g. caring for the tens of thousands of maimed
soldiers).


2. The current system is not broke. About 253 million people
(out
of
300
million) have health insurance.

cite?




I haven't examined the data here yet. It may or may not support
your
point,
or whatever HeySlob claims. Have a look, though.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7553.cfm


45 million non-elderly insured is too many, regardless.

I agree. Going without insurance is foolish.

--
Keith


How much do you pay for health insurance, and in which state do you
live?

Enough. Why do you ask?


Because I want to know. When you come up with an actual number, we can
continue.

I came up with a number, let's continue;

How much do you make?
How old are you?
How much do you weigh?
What's your bank account number?
What's your SSN?
What's your mother's maiden name?


--
Keith


The price of your health insurance is in NO way similar to the list of
information you responded with. If you believe the price is highly
confidential personal information, please come back on your 14th birthday
and we'll continue.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"krw" wrote in message
t...


I recall that in the early 1970s, when I was in college, I had an ID card
from my dad, for "major medical" coverage. Aetna or some other company. I
paid cash for the little stuff, which was rare, and this coverage was
supposed to kick in for big problems. I tried to find that sort of
coverage
a couple of months ago. Guess what? It's now non-existent in NY State. I
intend to find out why.

That's an easy one to answer. The government doesn't *want* you to
have insurance. They want you to have "free" medical care, no
matter what it costs.

Actually that is true and a major part of the problem. Insurance is
generally defined as taking a rare but major occurance and spreading the
risk among of many people. Not everyone's house burns down each year,
unlike seeing a doctor. We haven't had medical "insurance" since the
days of major medical.

In article , CJT
wrote:

clifto wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

That's an easy one to answer. The government doesn't *want* you to
have insurance. They want you to have "free" medical care, no
matter what it costs.


No. They want you to have what they call "free medical care", which is to
say nothing usable. You could get sex change operations but not cancer
treatment.

Where do you get these fantasies? Rush?

The Medicare Regs. They view some more or less mainstream cancer
treatments (Cyber knife comes to mind right off and there are others) as
investigational and generally won't pay. Sex change operation is not
considered investigational. Go figger

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"CJT" wrote in message
...

HeyBub wrote:


wrote:


the triilons wasted in iraq would likely pay for top notch
healthcare
for everyone..

the current system is broke, something better should be
created.

if someone with no health coverage shows up at the ER with a
life
threatening trouble they get cared for too. cant have them
dying
in
the waiting room......

such care can cost big bucks and earlier treatement may have
saved
lots of money.,


if the government quit wasting money on pork projects we could
probably afford good health care for everyone


Comments:
1. It's not TRILLIONS for the Iraq war, it's only a few hundred
billion.

Probably more like a trillion if we're honest about all the costs
that
will continue (e.g. caring for the tens of thousands of maimed
soldiers).


2. The current system is not broke. About 253 million people
(out
of
300
million) have health insurance.

cite?




I haven't examined the data here yet. It may or may not support
your
point,
or whatever HeySlob claims. Have a look, though.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7553.cfm


45 million non-elderly insured is too many, regardless.

I agree. Going without insurance is foolish.

--
Keith


How much do you pay for health insurance, and in which state do you
live?

Enough. Why do you ask?


Because I want to know. When you come up with an actual number, we can
continue.

I came up with a number, let's continue;

How much do you make?
How old are you?
How much do you weigh?
What's your bank account number?
What's your SSN?
What's your mother's maiden name?


--
Keith


The price of your health insurance is in NO way similar to the list of
information you responded with.

No different; none of your business.

If you believe the price is highly confidential personal information,

No different.

please come back on your 14th birthday and we'll continue.

You'll have a long wait for that countdown. Meanwhile, you'll
continue to show your ignorance.

--
Keith

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:47:52 -0500, krw wrote:

I'm a contractor. I get no benefits from my "employer".

Get a new boss...
Oren
--

HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

HeyBub wrote:


CJT wrote:


Do you hope to be left to die in the street if catastrophic illness
hits?


Won't happen. As some great worthy said (paraphrasing):

The law, in its majestic equality, prohibits both rich and poor
alike from begging alms on the public way, living under bridges, or
sleeping in the gutter.



The choices a

a) get everybody into a healthcare plan whether they like it or not --
but you don't like that

b) allow/force health care providers to turn away people who can't or
won't pay, ultimately resulting in them dying in the streets -- you
say that won't happen

c) the current system, in which the uninsured are paid for by the
insured in the form of inflated costs resulting from health care
providers treating the uninsured for free -- yet I suspect you
complain about the high cost of health care

Can anybody suggest another?


Let me turn it around. Just about every conceivable permutation has been
tried or is in use somewhere. Can you find a system that works better for
everyone?


As indicated in a previous post in this thread, several other countries
have exhibited dramatically better results than the U.S.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

krw wrote:

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

wrote:


On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:26:24 GMT, CJT wrote:



All the Democratic candidates complain there are 47 million people in this
country without health insurance. Assuming there are about 300 million folks
(299,398,484*) in the country, 300 - 47 = 253. My math may be a little off -
it's been quite a while since I was in the 2nd grade. Your numbers may vary.


That's 47 million too many.


So you want to force young people to buy insurance? Fine wirth me,
just don't force me to pay for theirs.

Young people can have severe health problems, too.


Sure, and they can buy insurance too. Are you suggesting that the
MA plan for forced insurance should be national? I'm not so down
on that, but since when is forced health insurance one of the
enumerated powers in the Constitution? Oh, that's right, you
leftists believe the Constitution says whatever you want it to say
today.

Since when does it say I in Texas should be paying to build a bridge
in Alaska for $250,000,000 that is unlikely ever to be used by more
than 20 people? Since when does it say the government can spy on its
citizens in secret programs even Congress doesn't know about?

Republicans have been interpreting things into the Constitution with
reckless abandon for years.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

In article , CJT
wrote:



As indicated in a previous post in this thread, several other countries
have exhibited dramatically better results than the U.S.

Depends on how you feel about waiting on line to get a new knee (more
than a year), 8 weeks to see an oncologist and then another 6 before
treatment can start in Canada (where there is a large difference in
spending and care between the various provinces), there has been quite a
bit of upheaval about lousy conditions at the NHS in England, etc. etc.,
etc.
No country has found Medical Nirvana, yet. It just depends on which
set of problems you want to mess with.

In article , CJT
wrote:


Since when does it say I in Texas should be paying to build a bridge
in Alaska for $250,000,000 that is unlikely ever to be used by more
than 20 people? Since when does it say the government can spy on its
citizens in secret programs even Congress doesn't know about?


Oh cmon. The Dems came up with the idea of earmarks in the mid-70s.
But like every other convert to the addiction, it took the GOP to raise
it to an artform. One that the Dems have shown no desire to cut down on
since they retook the Congress.


Republicans have been interpreting things into the Constitution with
reckless abandon for years.

Yeah like seatbelt laws, etc. Again a pox on both Houses. But to
suggest the GOP is the only one (or even the originator) of these kinds
of things is hardly true.

CJT wrote:
clifto wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

That's an easy one to answer. The government doesn't *want* you to
have insurance. They want you to have "free" medical care, no
matter what it costs.


No. They want you to have what they call "free medical care", which
is to say nothing usable. You could get sex change operations but
not cancer treatment.

Where do you get these fantasies? Rush?

"[UK] A life-saving treatment will be denied to tens of thousands of victims
of Britain's most common male cancer after a U-turn by the NHS rationing
body."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ncancer116.xml

"[UK] TRANSSEXUALS won the right to have sex change operations on the NHS
yesterday after a landmark ruling by the Court of Appeal recognised the
condition as a legitimate illness." http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/821

CJT wrote:


As indicated in a previous post in this thread, several other
countries have exhibited dramatically better results than the U.S.

Psst! Don't believe everything you see in a Michael Moore film about Cuba.

And folks can juggle the figures. France has a MUCH lower infant mortality
rate than the U.S. But France makes no attempt to minister to extremely
premature infants, prefering to call them "born dead." In the U.S.,
Herculean efforts are expended in those conditions.

Here's a statistic that'll cause you to drop your donuts.

There were fewer U.S. deaths in 2006 than there were in 2005. Think about
that for a moment. Fewer deaths. In spite of MORE people and an advanced
average age. Fewer deaths! At first the CDC and Census Bureau thought there
was some ghastly tabulation mistake but when they examined in detail the
death records from 3,050 counties in the U.S., the results held up!

Catch this: 6% few deaths attributed to cancer, 6% fewer deaths attributed
to heart disease. Six percent is a HUGE number. The experts don't know why.
Better treatments? Sure. Earlier diagnosis? Probably. Better access to
health care? Of course.

But whatever the cause, the entire system provided substantial, measurable
results.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"krw" wrote in message
t...


I recall that in the early 1970s, when I was in college, I had an ID
card
from my dad, for "major medical" coverage. Aetna or some other company.
I
paid cash for the little stuff, which was rare, and this coverage was
supposed to kick in for big problems. I tried to find that sort of
coverage
a couple of months ago. Guess what? It's now non-existent in NY State.
I
intend to find out why.

That's an easy one to answer. The government doesn't *want* you to
have insurance. They want you to have "free" medical care, no
matter what it costs.

Actually that is true and a major part of the problem. Insurance is
generally defined as taking a rare but major occurance and spreading the
risk among of many people. Not everyone's house burns down each year,
unlike seeing a doctor. We haven't had medical "insurance" since the
days of major medical.


Interesting theory. What should we call the plans we pay for? A big-ass
gift card that keeps emptying itself each month whether we use it or not?

"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
"krw" wrote in message
t...
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"CJT" wrote in message
...

HeyBub wrote:


wrote:


the triilons wasted in iraq would likely pay for top notch
healthcare
for everyone..

the current system is broke, something better should be
created.

if someone with no health coverage shows up at the ER with a
life
threatening trouble they get cared for too. cant have them
dying
in
the waiting room......

such care can cost big bucks and earlier treatement may have
saved
lots of money.,


if the government quit wasting money on pork projects we
could
probably afford good health care for everyone


Comments:
1. It's not TRILLIONS for the Iraq war, it's only a few
hundred
billion.

Probably more like a trillion if we're honest about all the
costs
that
will continue (e.g. caring for the tens of thousands of maimed
soldiers).


2. The current system is not broke. About 253 million people
(out
of
300
million) have health insurance.

cite?




I haven't examined the data here yet. It may or may not
support
your
point,
or whatever HeySlob claims. Have a look, though.
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7553.cfm


45 million non-elderly insured is too many, regardless.

I agree. Going without insurance is foolish.

--
Keith


How much do you pay for health insurance, and in which state do you
live?

Enough. Why do you ask?


Because I want to know. When you come up with an actual number, we can
continue.

I came up with a number, let's continue;

How much do you make?
How old are you?
How much do you weigh?
What's your bank account number?
What's your SSN?
What's your mother's maiden name?


--
Keith


The price of your health insurance is in NO way similar to the list of
information you responded with.

No different; none of your business.

If you believe the price is highly confidential personal information,

No different.



OK. Then, look back a few message to the one where you said "going without
insurance is foolish". Without presenting numbers, you cannot comment on
what other people can afford. If you don't have a group plan available here
(Rochester NY), and you have to buy your own insurance, guess what it costs
per month for a single person.

Go ahead. Guess.

"CJT" wrote in message
...
krw wrote:

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

wrote:


On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:26:24 GMT, CJT wrote:



All the Democratic candidates complain there are 47 million people in
this country without health insurance. Assuming there are about 300
million folks (299,398,484*) in the country, 300 - 47 = 253. My math
may be a little off - it's been quite a while since I was in the 2nd
grade. Your numbers may vary.


That's 47 million too many.


So you want to force young people to buy insurance? Fine wirth me,
just don't force me to pay for theirs.

Young people can have severe health problems, too.


Sure, and they can buy insurance too. Are you suggesting that the MA
plan for forced insurance should be national? I'm not so down on that,
but since when is forced health insurance one of the enumerated powers in
the Constitution? Oh, that's right, you leftists believe the
Constitution says whatever you want it to say today.

Since when does it say I in Texas should be paying to build a bridge
in Alaska for $250,000,000 that is unlikely ever to be used by more
than 20 people? Since when does it say the government can spy on its
citizens in secret programs even Congress doesn't know about?

Republicans have been interpreting things into the Constitution with
reckless abandon for years.


Another version I read last night: In the Bush administration, a
constitutional crisis is when someone asks to read it.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

CJT wrote:


As indicated in a previous post in this thread, several other
countries have exhibited dramatically better results than the U.S.

Psst! Don't believe everything you see in a Michael Moore film about Cuba.

And folks can juggle the figures. France has a MUCH lower infant mortality
rate than the U.S. But France makes no attempt to minister to extremely
premature infants, prefering to call them "born dead." In the U.S.,
Herculean efforts are expended in those conditions.


There is also a robust correlation between infant mortality and out of
wedlock and teen pregnancies. Guess who leads the league in those two
categories. Also social problems (outside of the purview of medicine)
skew the results. For instance, a gangbanger being shot in a drive-by at
17 impacts much more on the life expectancy stats than keeping an 70
year old around to 80.
Study a couple years ago attributed much of the drop in the US
murder rate to trauma centers saving people and changing murder to
merely assaulted.



Catch this: 6% few deaths attributed to cancer, 6% fewer deaths attributed
to heart disease. Six percent is a HUGE number. The experts don't know why.
Better treatments? Sure. Earlier diagnosis? Probably. Better access to
health care? Of course.

But whatever the cause, the entire system provided substantial, measurable
results.
And this from Lancet Oncology"s landmark study on cancer survival
rates:

€ The American five-year survival rate for prostate cancer is 99
percent, the European average is 78 percent, and the Scottish and Welsh
rate is close to 71 percent. (English data were incomplete.)
€ For the 16 different types of cancer examined in the study,
American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent, compared with
only 47 percent for European men. Among European countries, only Sweden
has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.
€ American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five
years after a cancer diagnosis, compared with 56 percent for European
women. For women, only five European countries have an overall survival
rate of more than 60 percent.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


Interesting theory. What should we call the plans we pay for? A big-ass
gift card that keeps emptying itself each month whether we use it or not?

Anything other than insurance. You are probably closer to correct,
which is another problem with the system since you aren't spending your
own money.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:44:05 -0600, clifto wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
That's an easy one to answer. The government doesn't *want* you to
have insurance. They want you to have "free" medical care, no
matter what it costs.

No. They want you to have what they call "free medical care", which is to
say nothing usable. You could get sex change operations but not cancer
treatment.

It's the faith-based health care plan:

You have faith in it.
It does nothing at all.
You like it, and are sure it worked.

CJT wrote:

krw wrote:

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

wrote:


On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:26:24 GMT, CJT wrote:

Since when does it say I in Texas should be paying to build a bridge
in Alaska for $250,000,000 that is unlikely ever to be used by more
than 20 people?

Since 1787, Article I, Section 8. "The Congress shall have Power [...] To
establish Post Offices and Post Roads;"

Republicans have been interpreting things into the Constitution with
reckless abandon for years.

And Democrats, and Federalists. Politicians are politicians and always have
been.

-- Doug

CJT wrote:

Republicans have been interpreting things into the Constitution with
reckless abandon for years.

It would seem you believe in that red/blue stuff that they feed you?

Here is a good read about how there is no difference:

http://repmetcalfe.com/mail/util.cfm...27885.46&gen=1

Summary, our state governors wife is a federal judge and she doesn't
believe the founding fathers view of a system with checks and balances
doesn't make sense so she thinks it is proper to legislate from the
bench to get her way.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , CJT
wrote:



Since when does it say I in Texas should be paying to build a bridge
in Alaska for $250,000,000 that is unlikely ever to be used by more
than 20 people? Since when does it say the government can spy on its
citizens in secret programs even Congress doesn't know about?



Oh cmon. The Dems came up with the idea of earmarks in the mid-70s.
But like every other convert to the addiction, it took the GOP to raise
it to an artform. One that the Dems have shown no desire to cut down on
since they retook the Congress.



Republicans have been interpreting things into the Constitution with
reckless abandon for years.


Yeah like seatbelt laws, etc. Again a pox on both Houses. But to
suggest the GOP is the only one (or even the originator) of these kinds
of things is hardly true.

As you say, the GOP are the ones who raised the level of abuse to an
artform.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

clifto wrote:


JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


That's an easy one to answer. The government doesn't *want* you to
have insurance. They want you to have "free" medical care, no
matter what it costs.


No. They want you to have what they call "free medical care", which
is to say nothing usable. You could get sex change operations but
not cancer treatment.


Where do you get these fantasies? Rush?


"[UK] A life-saving treatment will be denied to tens of thousands of victims
of Britain's most common male cancer after a U-turn by the NHS rationing
body."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ncancer116.xml

"[UK] TRANSSEXUALS won the right to have sex change operations on the NHS
yesterday after a landmark ruling by the Court of Appeal recognised the
condition as a legitimate illness." http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/821


Sorry, I didn't realize you were in the UK. Press on.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Douglas Johnson wrote:

CJT wrote:


krw wrote:


In article , alt.home.repair,
says...


wrote:



On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:26:24 GMT, CJT wrote:


Since when does it say I in Texas should be paying to build a bridge
in Alaska for $250,000,000 that is unlikely ever to be used by more
than 20 people?


Since 1787, Article I, Section 8. "The Congress shall have Power [...] To
establish Post Offices and Post Roads;"

Establish doesn't necessarily mean build. It could mean designate.



Republicans have been interpreting things into the Constitution with
reckless abandon for years.


And Democrats, and Federalists. Politicians are politicians and always have
been.

-- Doug


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .