Sniff...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTYL-...embedded#t=304

Coming soon: Healthcare for grandma...

Noahbuddy wrote:

...out of the mouth of an ignorant screamer at town hall meetings.
Rumors were started by the gutter-trash former gov. of Alaska.

There's some truth to some of what you say. You've got to admit, however,
it's effective.

Me? I'm not worried about grandma getting unplugged; I'm worried about
whether she'll get plugged up in the first place.

On Aug 23, 1:15*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Noahbuddy wrote:

...out of the mouth of an ignorant screamer at town hall meetings.
Rumors were started by the gutter-trash former gov. of Alaska.

There's some truth to some of what you say. You've got to admit, however,
it's effective.

Me? I'm not worried about grandma getting unplugged; I'm worried about
whether she'll get plugged up in the first place.


Yes you have to read between the lines with the govt. healt care. He
did say gradma would not get unplugged, but notice that he omitted
completely, nor did the press ask, if she would get high-tech life
support in the first place. So he was speaking the truth, but
probably by omission.

On Aug 23, 1:15*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Noahbuddy wrote:

...out of the mouth of an ignorant screamer at town hall meetings.
Rumors were started by the gutter-trash former gov. of Alaska.

There's some truth to some of what you say. You've got to admit, however,
it's effective.

Me? I'm not worried about grandma getting unplugged; I'm worried about
whether she'll get plugged up in the first place.

If I was Grandma I wouldn't want to be plugged in in the first place.
Why lay here running up the national debt in life support when you
could move on to a better place? I have no resuscitation orders filed
with both local hospitals.

windcrest wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:15 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Noahbuddy wrote:

...out of the mouth of an ignorant screamer at town hall meetings.
Rumors were started by the gutter-trash former gov. of Alaska.
There's some truth to some of what you say. You've got to admit, however,
it's effective.

Me? I'm not worried about grandma getting unplugged; I'm worried about
whether she'll get plugged up in the first place.


Yes you have to read between the lines with the govt. healt care. He
did say gradma would not get unplugged, but notice that he omitted
completely, nor did the press ask, if she would get high-tech life
support in the first place. So he was speaking the truth, but
probably by omission.

Guess what? IMHO, most grandmas (and grandpas) would prefer to NOT get
plugged up in the first place, once they are past a certain point on the
decay curve. It should be their decision, of course, not the family's
and for damn sure not the doctor's. But of the older relatives and
friends I have discussed this with (now that I am going gray), pretty
much all of them said that once they are not aware of their
surroundings, they would just as soon not hang around. They all
routinely insist on DNR orders when they go into the hospital.
Said orders apply if their gatekeeper physician decides that recovery to
a functional self-sufficient state is unlikely. Keep them clean, keep
them out of pain, but otherwise let nature take its course.

--
aem sends....

...out of the mouth of an ignorant screamer at town hall meetings.

They're letting the union thugs scream at town meetings now?

windcrest wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:15 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Noahbuddy wrote:

...out of the mouth of an ignorant screamer at town hall meetings.
Rumors were started by the gutter-trash former gov. of Alaska.
There's some truth to some of what you say. You've got to admit, however,
it's effective.

Me? I'm not worried about grandma getting unplugged; I'm worried about
whether she'll get plugged up in the first place.


Yes you have to read between the lines with the govt. healt care. He
did say gradma would not get unplugged, but notice that he omitted
completely, nor did the press ask, if she would get high-tech life
support in the first place. So he was speaking the truth, but
probably by omission.


Grandma and grandpa have been offered less than "high-tech" life support
for a long, long time. They are very likely to have diapers slapped on
them if they can't get to a bathroom unaided. Medicare reimbursed
nursing homes based on a certain number of hours per patient...that may
have changed. Medicare used to allow 3.something hours of nursing care
per day per patient. There was no time-sheet, and if Joe and Bill were
ill enough to require 6 hours of nursing care, then someone was shorted.
I had nursing home patients who required almost continual care.

I once asked a nurse-aid not to use so many underpads for an incontinent
patient....her reply was "Medicare pays for them". That was probably 30
years ago and reimbursement was $1 each.

Rental of durable medical equipment and oxygen machines is a racket that
is horribly abused.

I read a story in the newspaper not long ago about a 78-year-old waiting
for a heart transplant. Know an indiviual, long-term heavy drinker, who
is waiting for a liver transplant, and is probably drawing disability
and Medicare coverage.

"High tech" has medical practice at the brink of insanity and
insolvency. I would wager a bet that rehab rates would increase and
costs drop dramatically if nursing homes hired more nurses and nurse
aides. I would vote for mandatory national service for all citizens if
it included serving in such work.

Basic medical and surgical covereage under a national plan would benefit
all of us. If folks want blue pills, transplants, fertility treatment,
let them buy luxurious plans as they can afford them. There should also
be psychiatric coverage at least for children that includes treatment
for substance abuse.

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
windcrest wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:15 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Noahbuddy wrote:

...out of the mouth of an ignorant screamer at town hall meetings.
Rumors were started by the gutter-trash former gov. of Alaska.
There's some truth to some of what you say. You've got to admit,
however,
it's effective.

Me? I'm not worried about grandma getting unplugged; I'm worried about
whether she'll get plugged up in the first place.


Yes you have to read between the lines with the govt. healt care. He
did say gradma would not get unplugged, but notice that he omitted
completely, nor did the press ask, if she would get high-tech life
support in the first place. So he was speaking the truth, but
probably by omission.

Guess what? IMHO, most grandmas (and grandpas) would prefer to NOT get
plugged up in the first place, once they are past a certain point on the
decay curve. It should be their decision, of course, not the family's and
for damn sure not the doctor's. But of the older relatives and friends I
have discussed this with (now that I am going gray), pretty much all of
them said that once they are not aware of their surroundings, they would
just as soon not hang around. They all routinely insist on DNR orders when
they go into the hospital.
Said orders apply if their gatekeeper physician decides that recovery to a
functional self-sufficient state is unlikely. Keep them clean, keep them
out of pain, but otherwise let nature take its course.

--
aem sends....

Unless, of course, Medicare or Medicaid is footing the bill, then the evil
doctor will remove one body part at a time to stuff his pockets. Or so
Barry sez ..........

SteveB wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
windcrest wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:15 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Noahbuddy wrote:

...out of the mouth of an ignorant screamer at town hall meetings.
Rumors were started by the gutter-trash former gov. of Alaska.
There's some truth to some of what you say. You've got to admit,
however,
it's effective.

Me? I'm not worried about grandma getting unplugged; I'm worried about
whether she'll get plugged up in the first place.

Yes you have to read between the lines with the govt. healt care. He
did say gradma would not get unplugged, but notice that he omitted
completely, nor did the press ask, if she would get high-tech life
support in the first place. So he was speaking the truth, but
probably by omission.

Guess what? IMHO, most grandmas (and grandpas) would prefer to NOT get
plugged up in the first place, once they are past a certain point on the
decay curve. It should be their decision, of course, not the family's and
for damn sure not the doctor's. But of the older relatives and friends I
have discussed this with (now that I am going gray), pretty much all of
them said that once they are not aware of their surroundings, they would
just as soon not hang around. They all routinely insist on DNR orders when
they go into the hospital.
Said orders apply if their gatekeeper physician decides that recovery to a
functional self-sufficient state is unlikely. Keep them clean, keep them
out of pain, but otherwise let nature take its course.

--
aem sends....

Unless, of course, Medicare or Medicaid is footing the bill, then the evil
doctor will remove one body part at a time to stuff his pockets. Or so
Barry sez ..........


Plugging or unplugging, I don't want the decision made by the Chicago mob.

Frank wrote in
:

SteveB wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
windcrest wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:15 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Noahbuddy wrote:

...out of the mouth of an ignorant screamer at town hall
meetings. Rumors were started by the gutter-trash former gov. of
Alaska.
There's some truth to some of what you say. You've got to admit,
however,
it's effective.

Me? I'm not worried about grandma getting unplugged; I'm worried
about whether she'll get plugged up in the first place.

Yes you have to read between the lines with the govt. healt care.
He did say gradma would not get unplugged, but notice that he
omitted completely, nor did the press ask, if she would get
high-tech life support in the first place. So he was speaking the
truth, but probably by omission.

Guess what? IMHO, most grandmas (and grandpas) would prefer to NOT
get plugged up in the first place, once they are past a certain
point on the decay curve. It should be their decision, of course,
not the family's and for damn sure not the doctor's. But of the
older relatives and friends I have discussed this with (now that I
am going gray), pretty much all of them said that once they are not
aware of their surroundings, they would just as soon not hang
around. They all routinely insist on DNR orders when they go into
the hospital. Said orders apply if their gatekeeper physician
decides that recovery to a functional self-sufficient state is
unlikely. Keep them clean, keep them out of pain, but otherwise let
nature take its course.

--
aem sends....

Unless, of course, Medicare or Medicaid is footing the bill, then the
evil doctor will remove one body part at a time to stuff his pockets.
Or so Barry sez ..........


Plugging or unplugging, I don't want the decision made by the Chicago
mob.


or any government.
at least with private insurance companies and hospitals,you can negotiate
with them,and sue them.
You can't do either with the government.(practically speaking)

You'd be long dead by the time the case got to court.

BTW,the whole "death panel" thing is about some gov't committee deciding
whether one gets expensive treatments,probably using actuarial tables.
Get too old *or in poor shape*,and the unknown gov't committee says NO to
further treatments,only allowing(paying for) mediation of pain and
suffering.

Oh,and Obama himself has said that he expects it to take 10-15 yrs to drive
out private health insurers,to reach his goal of "single payer".So this
talk of "public option" coverage is merely a diversion.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"SteveB" wrote in news:0ui8m6-
:


...out of the mouth of an ignorant screamer at town hall meetings.

They're letting the union thugs scream at town meetings now?




they're too busy outside... blocking,pushing,and beating up opponents.

Union,ACORN,and New Black Panthers.
And we already know Obama's Justice Dept. will not prosecute them.

all the "progressives" are the "useful idiots" of modern times.
They've been SUCKERED.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

clipped

Plugging or unplugging, I don't want the decision made by the Chicago mob.

Better they than the Republican Party. In fact, I believe I will add
that to my living will )

Jim Yanik wrote:
Frank wrote in

Plugging or unplugging, I don't want the decision made by the Chicago
mob.


or any government.
at least with private insurance companies and hospitals,you can negotiate
with them,and sue them.
You can't do either with the government.(practically speaking)

You'd be long dead by the time the case got to court.

BTW,the whole "death panel" thing is about some gov't committee deciding
whether one gets expensive treatments,probably using actuarial tables.
Get too old *or in poor shape*,and the unknown gov't committee says NO to
further treatments,only allowing(paying for) mediation of pain and
suffering.

Oh,and Obama himself has said that he expects it to take 10-15 yrs to drive
out private health insurers,to reach his goal of "single payer".So this
talk of "public option" coverage is merely a diversion.


Exactly.

Here's a situation I am familiar with in the UK and am one of the
petition signers:

http://www.phassociation.uk.com/peti...troduction.asp

Look at the acronym NICE (National Institute of Health and Clinical
Excellence) - the name of the government death squad.

With Obamacare, this is where US is heading.

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:41:55 -0400, Frank
wrote:

Plugging or unplugging, I don't want the decision made by the Chicago mob.

A friend has been know to say: "If I'm on life support, don't unplug
me. That way the Pension checks keep coming in."

aemeijers wrote:

Guess what? IMHO, most grandmas (and grandpas) would prefer to NOT get
plugged up in the first place, once they are past a certain point on
the decay curve. It should be their decision, of course, not the
family's and for damn sure not the doctor's. But of the older
relatives and friends I have discussed this with (now that I am
going gray), pretty much all of them said that once they are not
aware of their surroundings, they would just as soon not hang around.
They all routinely insist on DNR orders when they go into the
hospital. Said orders apply if their gatekeeper physician decides that
recovery
to a functional self-sufficient state is unlikely. Keep them clean,
keep them out of pain, but otherwise let nature take its course.

You're probably right, but, like the president's promise that "if you like
your current policy, you can keep it," it is the height of officious
arrogance for the government to assert either claim.

The government should NOT even mention that many would prefer DNR. The
government should NOT even mention I can keep my plan. For the government to
even contemplate either is to admit they can take action to nullify my
choices.

I feel the same way about physician-assisted suicide - I'm against it. The
suicide's okay, but not the physician part. Physicians should be BARRED from
such action. Maybe a suicide nurse is the answer. Or a dentist. Or a
veterinarian.

You see, I want to be assured that my physician is always on my side, that
he will never, ever, contemplate taking my life. It is his job to INTERFERE
with the death process. He will always lose, but he should never, never,
never quit trying.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


You see, I want to be assured that my physician is always on my side, that
he will never, ever, contemplate taking my life. It is his job to INTERFERE
with the death process. He will always lose, but he should never, never,
never quit trying.

It is his/her job to do what is best for you medically. Period.
Exclamation point. If that is help you shuffle off this mortal coil,
then they should be able to give you their best available advice. That
sometimes may include stopping the artifical and letting nature take its
course. About the only part of the plan I can get into without
reservation is that the counselling should be done. Actually BEFORE you
are in an extremis situation.

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


You see, I want to be assured that my physician is always on my
side, that he will never, ever, contemplate taking my life. It is
his job to INTERFERE with the death process. He will always lose,
but he should never, never, never quit trying.

It is his/her job to do what is best for you medically. Period.
Exclamation point. If that is help you shuffle off this mortal coil,
then they should be able to give you their best available advice. That
sometimes may include stopping the artifical and letting nature take
its course. About the only part of the plan I can get into without
reservation is that the counselling should be done. Actually BEFORE
you are in an extremis situation.

The only problem with the counseling is that it is done by the government
and the government has an interest in the outcome. It is the appearance (and
the temptation) to do evil that's troublesome.

The government should AT LEAST offer counseling by the institution's chaplin
as a choice.

Frank wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Frank wrote in

Plugging or unplugging, I don't want the decision made by the
Chicago mob.


or any government.
at least with private insurance companies and hospitals,you can
negotiate with them,and sue them.
You can't do either with the government.(practically speaking)

You'd be long dead by the time the case got to court.

BTW,the whole "death panel" thing is about some gov't committee
deciding whether one gets expensive treatments,probably using
actuarial tables. Get too old *or in poor shape*,and the unknown
gov't committee says NO to further treatments,only allowing(paying
for) mediation of pain and suffering.

Oh,and Obama himself has said that he expects it to take 10-15 yrs to
drive out private health insurers,to reach his goal of "single
payer".So this talk of "public option" coverage is merely a
diversion.


Exactly.

Here's a situation I am familiar with in the UK and am one of the
petition signers:

http://www.phassociation.uk.com/peti...troduction.asp

Look at the acronym NICE (National Institute of Health and Clinical
Excellence) - the name of the government death squad.

With Obamacare, this is where US is heading.


it's amazing how much the "progressives" are in denial.
they simply cannot or refuse to see this happening here.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


You see, I want to be assured that my physician is always on my side,
that he will never, ever, contemplate taking my life. It is his job
to INTERFERE with the death process. He will always lose, but he
should never, never, never quit trying.

It is his/her job to do what is best for you medically. Period.
Exclamation point.

but who PAYS for whatever treatment the doc decides?
THAT is where the "death panels" step in.
No doc is going to sell their services at a loss or give them away for
free. Nor should they be forced to.
The result would be doctors leaving the practice,and fewer new doctors
entering practice;less service and longer waits.
This is evident in other countries.


If that is help you shuffle off this mortal coil,
then they should be able to give you their best available advice.

Advice only goes so far,then treatment (or denial of treatment)is
necessary.


That
sometimes may include stopping the artifical and letting nature take
its course. About the only part of the plan I can get into without
reservation is that the counselling should be done. Actually BEFORE
you are in an extremis situation.


What about accidents?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

The only problem with the counseling is that it is done by the government
and the government has an interest in the outcome. It is the appearance (and
the temptation) to do evil that's troublesome.
Paid for by the government not being done by the government. Using
your example, pretty much every time the doc suggests ANYTHING for
either MCare or MCaid it is suspect.

The government should AT LEAST offer counseling by the institution's chaplin
as a choice.
The chaplain understands the medical aspects and various risk
reward ratios involved, especially in most end of life discussions. I
don't think so!

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


but who PAYS for whatever treatment the doc decides?
THAT is where the "death panels" step in.

Who pays for it now?

No doc is going to sell their services at a loss or give them away for
free. Nor should they be forced to.
But that is pretty much what is happening in most cases where the
docs don't get paid for counselling.

The result would be doctors leaving the practice,and fewer new doctors
entering practice;less service and longer waits.
This is evident in other countries.
Ad ours with MCare and MCaid already.



If that is help you shuffle off this mortal coil,
then they should be able to give you their best available advice.

Advice only goes so far,then treatment (or denial of treatment)is
necessary.
Which the counselling wouldn't address. That is a different part
of the process. It also happens now under private and governmental plans
alike.


That
sometimes may include stopping the artifical and letting nature take
its course. About the only part of the plan I can get into without
reservation is that the counselling should be done. Actually BEFORE
you are in an extremis situation.


What about accidents?

BEFORE in extremis situations would tend to suggest an ongoing
process. At least every so many years (IIRC that is once every 5 years
or so? Probably not often enough). I, for instance, already have the
living will and durable power of attorney for health care filled out and
ready to go. But those not intimately involved in the healthcare side,
don't know about these things often and could use the suggestions and
reminders.

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


but who PAYS for whatever treatment the doc decides?
THAT is where the "death panels" step in.

Who pays for it now?

That's between private insurers,you and your doctors.

At least you can negotiate or sue them;you can't with government.

No doc is going to sell their services at a loss or give them away for
free. Nor should they be forced to.
But that is pretty much what is happening in most cases where the
docs don't get paid for counselling.

The result would be doctors leaving the practice,and fewer new doctors
entering practice;less service and longer waits.
This is evident in other countries.
Ad ours with MCare and MCaid already.

EXACTLY.
people seem to think that a National Healthcare System is going to be run
better than the present Medicare and Medicaid? Crazy.

(or better than USPS,AMTRAK,NASA,Senate and House lunchrooms....)




If that is help you shuffle off this mortal coil,
then they should be able to give you their best available advice.

Advice only goes so far,then treatment (or denial of treatment)is
necessary.
Which the counselling wouldn't address. That is a different part
of the process. It also happens now under private and governmental plans
alike.

"counselling" is a distraction;
it's the *denial of treatments* that is the problem.



That
sometimes may include stopping the artifical and letting nature take
its course. About the only part of the plan I can get into without
reservation is that the counselling should be done. Actually BEFORE
you are in an extremis situation.


What about accidents?

BEFORE in extremis situations would tend to suggest an ongoing
process. At least every so many years (IIRC that is once every 5 years
or so? Probably not often enough). I, for instance, already have the
living will and durable power of attorney for health care filled out and
ready to go. But those not intimately involved in the healthcare side,
don't know about these things often and could use the suggestions and
reminders.



BTW,Obama has said he expects to drive private insurers out of the
healthcare business,and that it would take 10-15 years to do it.
It's a GOAL of Obama's to have only a "single payer" system.
NO competition(with the resultant savings),no choice.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


"counselling" is a distraction;
it's the *denial of treatments* that is the problem.

I agree. Especially since the two are not even remotely linked.


BTW,Obama has said he expects to drive private insurers out of the
healthcare business,and that it would take 10-15 years to do it.
It's a GOAL of Obama's to have only a "single payer" system.
NO competition(with the resultant savings),no choice.

There are some interesting clauses that I find somewhat interesting in
the House version of the bill. The MOST is that the government option
(if it survives) would be specifically forbidden from negotiating with
the providers. Rather, it would use the MCare reimbursement models which
impose reimbursement on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Since Mcare
generally pays around 60 cents for every $1 paid by the Evil Insurance
Companies, this would seem to be a VERY potent competitive edge that is
magnified by the fact the government option is also denied the right to
make a profit.
The other thing is that if the loss ratio on any given year is
higher than some artifically mandated standard, then all programs are
required to refund it. However, the actuaries don't always get it right
and the pay out rates can fluctuate. There is not method to capture more
money if the ratio goes below what is approved.

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

The only problem with the counseling is that it is done by the government
and the government has an interest in the outcome. It is the appearance (and
the temptation) to do evil that's troublesome.
Paid for by the government not being done by the government. Using
your example, pretty much every time the doc suggests ANYTHING for
either MCare or MCaid it is suspect.

Last time I remember the government being involved in end-of-life
decisions was purely for political purposes in the Terry Schiavo case.
The wonderful GOP (God's Only Proxy), in their devotion to "family
values", sought to replace the husband of this poor woman to drive their
"pro-life" political agenda. Their gang of TV preachers and one-issue
radicals have driven this country to the brink of disaster. Where are
the pro-lifers when innocent people are being executed by our grand
governments? Schiavo's brain, as was predicted by the non-political
side of the expert opinions, was damaged far more severely than others
claimed and could not have functioned to provide the signs of conscious
effort and response the mad-dogs claimed. The governor of Florida was
on the brink of sending troops to invade the hospice being guarded by
the county sheriff to keep the dead woman "alive" with feeding
tubes....that would have been an interesting encounter.


The government should AT LEAST offer counseling by the institution's chaplin
as a choice.
The chaplain understands the medical aspects and various risk
reward ratios involved, especially in most end of life discussions. I
don't think so!

clipped

BTW,Obama has said he expects to drive private insurers out of the
healthcare business,and that it would take 10-15 years to do it.
It's a GOAL of Obama's to have only a "single payer" system.
NO competition(with the resultant savings),no choice.



Nobody seems to mention the potential savings in other areas if there
was a public system for basic care....

Your new car might cost 20% less.

Scrap the Workers Comp system and just cover "work related" accidents
and illnesses same as all others. Even without the crooks and ambulance
chasers, I suspect that at least 50% of repetitive motion and back
injuries are mostly the result of overweight and out-of-condition folks
who lawyer up to get tax-free benefits. The waste in fighting to get a
condition considered "work related" is horrendous. The crooks are
sucking money right out of your pocket in monies that could be paid to
good, honest people in wages.

I worked with one employer to change their company doctor .. even paid
taxi fare for transportation to larger cities 40-100 mi. away...saved
100k the first year. The government isn't my enemy; it is crooked,
lazy, irresponsible "neighbors" who want the maximum benefit for
themselves, who want "someone else" to pay for it, and who consider
themselves "conservative".

On Aug 23, 8:49*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Sniff...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTYL-...%2F%2Fwww%2Esn....

Coming soon: Healthcare for grandma...

How would the Corvette (anybody remember the subject line of this
thread) be treated under a gubmint health care plan?

Plugged or unplugged?

In article ,
" wrote:

Scrap the Workers Comp system and just cover "work related" accidents
and illnesses same as all others. Even without the crooks and ambulance
chasers, I suspect that at least 50% of repetitive motion and back
injuries are mostly the result of overweight and out-of-condition folks
who lawyer up to get tax-free benefits. The waste in fighting to get a
condition considered "work related" is horrendous. The crooks are
sucking money right out of your pocket in monies that could be paid to
good, honest people in wages.

A lot of this is political, too. Shocked that I know you are. For
instance, there are a whole list of diseases (COPD, cancers and even
Parkinsons) that by statute are automatically work-related in
firefighters. Others have similar carve outs.

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

The only problem with the counseling is that it is done by the
government and the government has an interest in the outcome. It is
the appearance (and the temptation) to do evil that's troublesome.

Paid for by the government not being done by the government. Using
your example, pretty much every time the doc suggests ANYTHING for
either MCare or MCaid it is suspect.

(see below)


The government should AT LEAST offer counseling by the institution's
chaplin as a choice.

The chaplain understands the medical aspects and various risk
reward ratios involved, especially in most end of life discussions. I
don't think so!

Then you would be thinking wrong. Virtually all seminaries offer courses in
chaplaincy. There are post-graduate (post-seminary?) degrees
(certifications?) in institutional chaplaincy. Even if the spiritual
counselor has not had the benefit of formal training, he's bound to have
picked up a significant amount of knowledge on the subject through osmosis.

Secondly, to respond to your first point, I would hope a man of the cloth
would put God or his fellow man ahead of mammon. I certainly would trust a
minister, rabbi, priest, or imam more than I would some overweight
bureaucrat from the "resources" department.

-------
Aside:

My next door neighbor was the Jewish Chaplin to the Texas Medical Center.
His primary duty was to deal with out-of-town Jews admitted to one of the
fifteen or so hospitals in the center. Each day he would get a combined
census of Jewish patients who didn't have a local rabbi and either he or one
of his volunteers would visit each.

One of his more interesting responsibilities was to maintain a card file of
local language resources since often patients from strange lands would land
at one of the Center's hospitals. Jews come from all over the world and the
project can be challenging. Guess how many local citizens in his card file
spoke Coptic? (Two), Farsi? (over a hundred), Yiddish? (a lot).

Anyway, he was often called upon to provide end-of-life counseling, many
times to patients and families not of his faith - much like a military
chaplain.

Jim Yanik wrote:

but who PAYS for whatever treatment the doc decides?
THAT is where the "death panels" step in.
No doc is going to sell their services at a loss or give them away for
free. Nor should they be forced to.

Virtually all doctors do. So, too, at one time or another, do dentists,
veterinarians, and physical therapists.

You're thinking of HVAC technicans.

DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Aug 23, 8:49 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Sniff...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTYL-...%2F%2Fwww%2Esn...

Coming soon: Healthcare for grandma...

How would the Corvette (anybody remember the subject line of this
thread) be treated under a gubmint health care plan?

Plugged or unplugged?

Models specially outfitted for members of Congress to make calls on
healthcare facilities, no doubt.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
" wrote:

Scrap the Workers Comp system and just cover "work related" accidents
and illnesses same as all others. Even without the crooks and ambulance
chasers, I suspect that at least 50% of repetitive motion and back
injuries are mostly the result of overweight and out-of-condition folks
who lawyer up to get tax-free benefits. The waste in fighting to get a
condition considered "work related" is horrendous. The crooks are
sucking money right out of your pocket in monies that could be paid to
good, honest people in wages.

A lot of this is political, too. Shocked that I know you are. For
instance, there are a whole list of diseases (COPD, cancers and even
Parkinsons) that by statute are automatically work-related in
firefighters. Others have similar carve outs.

Sooooooooo........? Railroaders once had special benefits as well.
Members of Congress have special coverage. I have the right, at least,
to the level of care provided MOC with my tax dollars. Work related,
schmerk related. The coverage and WHO gets HOW MUCH is what is
important, not the pocket it is pulled out of.

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


"counselling" is a distraction;
it's the *denial of treatments* that is the problem.

I agree. Especially since the two are not even remotely linked.

What do you think the "counselling" is for?
It's to get the patient to accept the fact that they are being left to
die,that they aren't getting further treatment,just drugs to numb the pain.



BTW,Obama has said he expects to drive private insurers out of the
healthcare business,and that it would take 10-15 years to do it.
It's a GOAL of Obama's to have only a "single payer" system.
NO competition(with the resultant savings),no choice.

There are some interesting clauses that I find somewhat interesting in
the House version of the bill. The MOST is that the government option
(if it survives) would be specifically forbidden from negotiating with
the providers. Rather, it would use the MCare reimbursement models which
impose reimbursement on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Since Mcare
generally pays around 60 cents for every $1 paid by the Evil Insurance
Companies, this would seem to be a VERY potent competitive edge that is
magnified by the fact the government option is also denied the right to
make a profit.


so private insurers would have to "compete" with the gov't,or buyers would
naturally go with the cheaper "option",thus driving private insurers out of
business.Also,doctors must accept providing their services at a loss,or
pass the unpaid portion to others,raising their costs of care.(that's what
happens now with healthcare...)
OR,doctors leave the business,reducing available services and lengthening
waits for care.That HAS happened in other countries.

WRT gov't healthcare not having to make a profit,it was never expected to.
Just the opposite,it's expected to lose money,just like everything the
gov't manages.


The other thing is that if the loss ratio on any given year is
higher than some artifically mandated standard, then all programs are
required to refund it. However, the actuaries don't always get it right
and the pay out rates can fluctuate. There is not method to capture more
money if the ratio goes below what is approved.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:

or any government.
at least with private insurance companies and hospitals,you can negotiate
with them,and sue them.
You can't do either with the government.(practically speaking)

You'd be long dead by the time the case got to court.

BTW,the whole "death panel" thing is about some gov't committee deciding
whether one gets expensive treatments,probably using actuarial tables.
Get too old *or in poor shape*,and the unknown gov't committee says NO to
further treatments,only allowing(paying for) mediation of pain and
suffering.

For most grandmas, the government is already paying the bills through Medicare.
They don't have any death panels and haven't for over 40 years. Based on my
experiences with my parents, Medicare would have pay for a whole lot more health
care than they wanted.

The whole death panel thing and it's variants is pure scare tactics. I wish
this discussion could be kept on a factual, rational plain. Yes, some of the
people in favor of health care are using emotional tactics as well. "Evil
profit making insurance companies."

-- Doug

In article ,
" wrote:

Sooooooooo........? Railroaders once had special benefits as well.

But did they have a list of diseases that were automatically deemed
to be work related and there was no need to actually prove a link?

Members of Congress have special coverage. I have the right, at least,
to the level of care provided MOC with my tax dollars. Work related,
schmerk related. The coverage and WHO gets HOW MUCH is what is
important, not the pocket it is pulled out of.
What is important, especially in the context of a government run
health care plan, is whether or not the politics trumps the science.

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

Douglas Johnson wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

or any government.
at least with private insurance companies and hospitals,you can
negotiate with them,and sue them.
You can't do either with the government.(practically speaking)

You'd be long dead by the time the case got to court.

BTW,the whole "death panel" thing is about some gov't committee
deciding whether one gets expensive treatments,probably using
actuarial tables. Get too old *or in poor shape*,and the unknown gov't
committee says NO to further treatments,only allowing(paying for)
mediation of pain and suffering.

For most grandmas, the government is already paying the bills through
Medicare. They don't have any death panels and haven't for over 40
years. Based on my experiences with my parents, Medicare would have
pay for a whole lot more health care than they wanted.

yes,and Obama wants to change that,to cut costs.
After all,Medicare and Medicaid are both operating at a loss.

I also note that supplemental insurance is offered to cover what those
plans will not cover.


The whole death panel thing and it's variants is pure scare tactics.

No,it's a possible consequence of Obama's "change".

I wish this discussion could be kept on a factual, rational plain.
Yes, some of the people in favor of health care are using emotional
tactics as well. "Evil profit making insurance companies."

-- Doug




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
" wrote:

Sooooooooo........? Railroaders once had special benefits as well.

But did they have a list of diseases that were automatically deemed
to be work related and there was no need to actually prove a link?

Members of Congress have special coverage. I have the right, at least,
to the level of care provided MOC with my tax dollars. Work related,
schmerk related. The coverage and WHO gets HOW MUCH is what is
important, not the pocket it is pulled out of.


What is important, especially in the context of a government run
health care plan, is whether or not the politics trumps the science.

Gee,you mean like Global Warming,now renamed "Climate Change"??

It appears politics trumps science there.
Proponents certainly don't want any debate;they say it's already "fact",and
Obama would go ahead with "Cap and Trade" despite any evidence that it
would have any effect on the global climate,particularly when most other
nations would not do the same regulation.

But it WOULD provide government a HUGE amount of power over the economy and
the US people.(while putting us back to lower living standards)



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article ,
ktos wrote:

All the bitchers are ****ed because we have a black prez.
Take off your hoods and be sensible. Drop out of the KKK.

Interesting only those who agree with Mr. Obama are NOT Kluckers?
Reminds me of the days of the Commie.

--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
Jimmy Buffett

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
windcrest wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:15 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Noahbuddy wrote:

...out of the mouth of an ignorant screamer at town hall meetings.
Rumors were started by the gutter-trash former gov. of Alaska.
There's some truth to some of what you say. You've got to admit,
however,
it's effective.

Me? I'm not worried about grandma getting unplugged; I'm worried about
whether she'll get plugged up in the first place.


Yes you have to read between the lines with the govt. healt care. He
did say gradma would not get unplugged, but notice that he omitted
completely, nor did the press ask, if she would get high-tech life
support in the first place. So he was speaking the truth, but
probably by omission.

Guess what? IMHO, most grandmas (and grandpas) would prefer to NOT get
plugged up in the first place, once they are past a certain point on the
decay curve. It should be their decision, of course, not the family's and
for damn sure not the doctor's. But of the older relatives and friends I
have discussed this with (now that I am going gray), pretty much all of
them said that once they are not aware of their surroundings, they would
just as soon not hang around. They all routinely insist on DNR orders when
they go into the hospital.
Said orders apply if their gatekeeper physician decides that recovery to a
functional self-sufficient state is unlikely. Keep them clean, keep them
out of pain, but otherwise let nature take its course.

--
aem sends....

I worked in a nursing home business office for over 10 years and I'd be
willing to bet if assisted suicide was legal it would be very popular in
nursing homes. Death, for the seriously ill, can be the best cure.

ktos wrote in
:

All the bitchers are ****ed because we have a black prez.
Take off your hoods and be sensible. Drop out of the KKK.

Obama himself is a racist;
note his statement about his grandmother;"typical white person".
then there's the more recent knee-jerk support of the Cambridge black
racist over the Cambridge police officer.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

HeyBub wrote:
Sniff...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTYL-...embedded#t=304

Coming soon: Healthcare for grandma...



it would have been funny if it had slung a rod and gone through the dash
and killed him.