On 9/15/2015 2:48 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/15/2015 4:40 AM, noname wrote:
On 09/14/2015 04:23 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
It's a nice service and good idea but it doesn't work for traditional
land lines from AT&T or the VoIP service from magicJack. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Phone Monster

I've not been following the situation but isn't AT&T trying to migrate
everyone to UVerse VoIP by 2020?....or do they still need to buy some
new regulations?

AFAIK, ATT is getting out of the landline business. Here in CT they sold it
all to Frontier.

(Aging) Copper is harder to maintain. And, landlines have legislated
guarantees of service -- that don't apply to other communication
technologies.

Unfortunately, the businesses that are clinging to copper seem to be
missing the boat in terms of opportunities; you've got all that infrastructure
and every land-line that disappears represents lost revenue. Offer
"basic" DSL for a great price so you get *some* revenue from those
assets! Instead, they (here) want to gouge you for mediocre service
(which makes it easy to decide to go elsewhere for your connectivity!)

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 11:30:15 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 9/15/2015 2:48 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/15/2015 4:40 AM, noname wrote:
On 09/14/2015 04:23 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
It's a nice service and good idea but it doesn't work for traditional
land lines from AT&T or the VoIP service from magicJack. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Phone Monster

I've not been following the situation but isn't AT&T trying to migrate
everyone to UVerse VoIP by 2020?....or do they still need to buy some
new regulations?

AFAIK, ATT is getting out of the landline business. Here in CT they sold it
all to Frontier.

(Aging) Copper is harder to maintain. And, landlines have legislated
guarantees of service -- that don't apply to other communication
technologies.

Unfortunately, the businesses that are clinging to copper seem to be
missing the boat in terms of opportunities; you've got all that infrastructure
and every land-line that disappears represents lost revenue. Offer
"basic" DSL for a great price so you get *some* revenue from those
assets! Instead, they (here) want to gouge you for mediocre service
(which makes it easy to decide to go elsewhere for your connectivity!)

I'd like to have fiber optic service but the distribution nodes need power and once the backup power runs out for them, you have dark fiber. The copper POTS line has been the most reliable telephone service for 140 years. I'd call it a mature technology but I really like to have FiOS. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle POTS Monster

"Uncle Monster" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 11:30:15 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 9/15/2015 2:48 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/15/2015 4:40 AM, noname wrote:
On 09/14/2015 04:23 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
It's a nice service and good idea but it doesn't work for traditional
land lines from AT&T or the VoIP service from magicJack. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Phone Monster

I've not been following the situation but isn't AT&T trying to migrate
everyone to UVerse VoIP by 2020?....or do they still need to buy some
new regulations?

AFAIK, ATT is getting out of the landline business. Here in CT they
sold it
all to Frontier.

(Aging) Copper is harder to maintain. And, landlines have legislated
guarantees of service -- that don't apply to other communication
technologies.

Unfortunately, the businesses that are clinging to copper seem to be
missing the boat in terms of opportunities; you've got all that
infrastructure
and every land-line that disappears represents lost revenue. Offer
"basic" DSL for a great price so you get *some* revenue from those
assets! Instead, they (here) want to gouge you for mediocre service
(which makes it easy to decide to go elsewhere for your connectivity!)

I'd like to have fiber optic service but the distribution nodes need power
and once the backup power runs out for them, you have dark fiber. The copper
POTS line has been the most reliable telephone service for 140 years. I'd
call it a mature technology but I really like to have FiOS. ^_^

----------

it is not an either or proposition.

On 9/15/2015 10:24 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 11:30:15 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

Unfortunately, the businesses that are clinging to copper seem to be
missing the boat in terms of opportunities; you've got all that
infrastructure and every land-line that disappears represents lost
revenue. Offer "basic" DSL for a great price so you get *some* revenue
from those assets! Instead, they (here) want to gouge you for mediocre
service (which makes it easy to decide to go elsewhere for your
connectivity!)

I'd like to have fiber optic service but the distribution nodes need power
and once the backup power runs out for them, you have dark fiber. The copper
POTS line has been the most reliable telephone service for 140 years. I'd
call it a mature technology but I really like to have FiOS. ^_^

It's been said that the force driving bandwidth "requirements" (of the 'net)
is entirely driven by *entertainment*. Surfing the web, email and even
pulling down large ISO's doesn't really tax even a low speed (e.g., 1Mb)
link.

OTOH, folks who want to download movies, music, etc. are stuck with
the associated costs of the pipe.

Frankly, I can't see a need/desire to sit and rot my brain watching streaming
video (on a PC *or* a TV). OTOH, I have a friend that spends his retirement
doing exactly -- and exclusively! -- that! (Gee, all those years he was
working, do you think he was muttering to himself: "I can't wait to
retire so I can sit at home and watch TV all day!!"?)

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 12:35:43 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 9/15/2015 10:24 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 11:30:15 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

Unfortunately, the businesses that are clinging to copper seem to be
missing the boat in terms of opportunities; you've got all that
infrastructure and every land-line that disappears represents lost
revenue. Offer "basic" DSL for a great price so you get *some* revenue
from those assets! Instead, they (here) want to gouge you for mediocre
service (which makes it easy to decide to go elsewhere for your
connectivity!)

I'd like to have fiber optic service but the distribution nodes need power
and once the backup power runs out for them, you have dark fiber. The copper
POTS line has been the most reliable telephone service for 140 years. I'd
call it a mature technology but I really like to have FiOS. ^_^

It's been said that the force driving bandwidth "requirements" (of the 'net)
is entirely driven by *entertainment*. Surfing the web, email and even
pulling down large ISO's doesn't really tax even a low speed (e.g., 1Mb)
link.

OTOH, folks who want to download movies, music, etc. are stuck with
the associated costs of the pipe.

Frankly, I can't see a need/desire to sit and rot my brain watching streaming
video (on a PC *or* a TV). OTOH, I have a friend that spends his retirement
doing exactly -- and exclusively! -- that! (Gee, all those years he was
working, do you think he was muttering to himself: "I can't wait to
retire so I can sit at home and watch TV all day!!"?)

I can't do much more than sit in this hospital bed and watch videos. Mostly news and entertainment but I really like documentaries and educational videos. If I was at home, I'd be downloading and experimenting with all sorts of software. I've even been doing some tech support via telephone from my bed. I only turn the TV on when I'm eating because I must take my Chromebook off the table. The last thing I want is to be retired and if I can get back on my feet again, I'll be working until I drop dead on the job. I'd be even more bonkers if I didn't have my Chromebook which allows me to interact with people from all over the world. It's so fraking frustrating to be unable to get up and go out at a moments notice, dammit! o_O

[8~{} Uncle Crippled Monster

On 9/15/2015 11:58 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 12:35:43 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

Frankly, I can't see a need/desire to sit and rot my brain watching
streaming video (on a PC *or* a TV). OTOH, I have a friend that spends
his retirement doing exactly -- and exclusively! -- that! (Gee, all those
years he was working, do you think he was muttering to himself: "I can't
wait to retire so I can sit at home and watch TV all day!!"?)

I can't do much more than sit in this hospital bed and watch videos. Mostly
news and entertainment but I really like documentaries and educational
videos. If I was at home, I'd be downloading and experimenting with all
sorts of software. I've even been doing some tech support via telephone from
my bed. I only turn the TV on when I'm eating because I must take my
Chromebook off the table. The last thing I want is to be retired and if I
can get back on my feet again, I'll be working until I drop dead on the job.
I'd be even more bonkers if I didn't have my Chromebook which allows me to
interact with people from all over the world. It's so fraking frustrating to
be unable to get up and go out at a moments notice, dammit! o_O

Obviously a different situation that that of my friend (my condolences).
*He* is perfectly able to live a normal, active life. But, *chooses* to
watch TV all day long. One neighbor (70-ish) is similarly inclined
(internet or TV). Another *would* spend the day in his over-stuffed
chair -- if his wife hadn't placed limits on his TV-time (the rest of
the time, he appears to spend "eating out" -- as I never see him doing
anything in the yard, swiming in the pool, etc.)

(sigh) If that's what "retirement" is, count me out! :-/ I can't
imagine people spending a lifetime *working* -- doing something largely
because they HAVE TO -- and *not* coming up with a rich bucket list
to look forward to in their retirement (when, hopefully, you have the
time, health *and* re$ource$ to do so)!

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 2:51:59 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 9/15/2015 11:58 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 12:35:43 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

Frankly, I can't see a need/desire to sit and rot my brain watching
streaming video (on a PC *or* a TV). OTOH, I have a friend that spends
his retirement doing exactly -- and exclusively! -- that! (Gee, all those
years he was working, do you think he was muttering to himself: "I can't
wait to retire so I can sit at home and watch TV all day!!"?)

I can't do much more than sit in this hospital bed and watch videos. Mostly
news and entertainment but I really like documentaries and educational
videos. If I was at home, I'd be downloading and experimenting with all
sorts of software. I've even been doing some tech support via telephone from
my bed. I only turn the TV on when I'm eating because I must take my
Chromebook off the table. The last thing I want is to be retired and if I
can get back on my feet again, I'll be working until I drop dead on the job.
I'd be even more bonkers if I didn't have my Chromebook which allows me to
interact with people from all over the world. It's so fraking frustrating to
be unable to get up and go out at a moments notice, dammit! o_O

Obviously a different situation that that of my friend (my condolences).
*He* is perfectly able to live a normal, active life. But, *chooses* to
watch TV all day long. One neighbor (70-ish) is similarly inclined
(internet or TV). Another *would* spend the day in his over-stuffed
chair -- if his wife hadn't placed limits on his TV-time (the rest of
the time, he appears to spend "eating out" -- as I never see him doing
anything in the yard, swiming in the pool, etc.)

(sigh) If that's what "retirement" is, count me out! :-/ I can't
imagine people spending a lifetime *working* -- doing something largely
because they HAVE TO -- and *not* coming up with a rich bucket list
to look forward to in their retirement (when, hopefully, you have the
time, health *and* re$ource$ to do so)!

Several years ago I was still working full time running service calls and working on installations. My friend GB who was 71 at the time and still working, died in his sleep as we were finishing up a job. Me and my brother were at the jobsite when we found out that our friend had passed away the night before. GB was a 71 year old juvenile delinquent who'd lost a lung to cancer but he couldn't put the cigarettes down. He hid them from me and my brother because he knew we'd chew him out for it. He hid his smoking from his wife, his daughters and his sisters because they'd go after him worse than us guys would. It killed him in the end and if he'd just thrown the damn cigarettes away, he'd be alive today. I'm still angry about it. 8-(

[8~{} Uncle Angry Monster

On 9/15/2015 2:29 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 2:51:59 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

(sigh) If that's what "retirement" is, count me out! :-/ I can't
imagine people spending a lifetime *working* -- doing something largely
because they HAVE TO -- and *not* coming up with a rich bucket list to
look forward to in their retirement (when, hopefully, you have the time,
health *and* re$ource$ to do so)!

Several years ago I was still working full time running service calls and
working on installations. My friend GB who was 71 at the time and still
working, died in his sleep as we were finishing up a job. Me and my brother
were at the jobsite when we found out that our friend had passed away the
night before. GB was a 71 year old juvenile delinquent who'd lost a lung to
cancer but he couldn't put the cigarettes down. He hid them from me and my
brother because he knew we'd chew him out for it. He hid his smoking from
his wife, his daughters and his sisters because they'd go after him worse
than us guys would. It killed him in the end and if he'd just thrown the
damn cigarettes away, he'd be alive today. I'm still angry about it. 8-(

His choice to smoke -- or not -- is his decision; he's answerable to himself
and to his immediate family (to a lesser extent). I don't believe anyone has
the right to impose their own sense of morality on another. People do
stupid things throughout their lives. I guess I want the right to do the
things that *I* want to do that *you* might consider "stupid". And, I'm
willing to trade my ability to impose my notions on *your* "stupidity" in
order to gain that right!

I am more concerned about those who "just got screwed" for no (apparent)
reason (i.e., weren't smokers, skydivers, having unprotected sex, drug
users, etc.). I've watched two folks die of ALS in recent years; another
of esophageal Ca; AFAICT, none did anything to "deserve" these maladies.

Watching someone smoke themselves to death is, to me, a big shrug.

Watching someone sit in front of a TV/computer (when they have other
opportunities!) is a similar shrug.

[When I think of folks like this, I ask myself, "Why do they get out of *bed*
in the morning?? Are they actually looking forward to living their lives
in this way?" It's not an indictment of their actions but, rather, a
genuine wonder: *why*??]

"Don Y" wrote in message
...
On 9/15/2015 2:29 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 2:51:59 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

(sigh) If that's what "retirement" is, count me out! :-/ I can't
imagine people spending a lifetime *working* -- doing something largely
because they HAVE TO -- and *not* coming up with a rich bucket list to
look forward to in their retirement (when, hopefully, you have the time,
health *and* re$ource$ to do so)!

Several years ago I was still working full time running service calls and
working on installations. My friend GB who was 71 at the time and still
working, died in his sleep as we were finishing up a job. Me and my
brother
were at the jobsite when we found out that our friend had passed away the
night before. GB was a 71 year old juvenile delinquent who'd lost a lung
to
cancer but he couldn't put the cigarettes down. He hid them from me and
my
brother because he knew we'd chew him out for it. He hid his smoking from
his wife, his daughters and his sisters because they'd go after him worse
than us guys would. It killed him in the end and if he'd just thrown the
damn cigarettes away, he'd be alive today. I'm still angry about it. 8-(

His choice to smoke -- or not -- is his decision; he's answerable to
himself
and to his immediate family (to a lesser extent). I don't believe anyone
has
the right to impose their own sense of morality on another. People do
stupid things throughout their lives. I guess I want the right to do the
things that *I* want to do that *you* might consider "stupid". And, I'm
willing to trade my ability to impose my notions on *your* "stupidity" in
order to gain that right!

I am more concerned about those who "just got screwed" for no (apparent)
reason (i.e., weren't smokers, skydivers, having unprotected sex, drug
users, etc.). I've watched two folks die of ALS in recent years; another
of esophageal Ca; AFAICT, none did anything to "deserve" these maladies.

Watching someone smoke themselves to death is, to me, a big shrug.

As stupid as smoking seems to me, I agree. Obviously there are benefits to
smoking - it calms, energizes, suppresses appetite. Maybe more. And who is
anyone to say a informed adult cannot make the choice to add some enjoyment
to his good years at the expense of reducing the number of his bad years?

Helps the finances of the Social Security and Medicare programs, too.

Watching someone smoke themselves to death is, to me, a big shrug.

As stupid as smoking seems to me, I agree. Obviously there are benefits to
smoking - it calms, energizes, suppresses appetite. Maybe more. And who is
anyone to say a informed adult cannot make the choice to add some enjoyment
to his good years at the expense of reducing the number of his bad years?

Helps the finances of the Social Security and Medicare programs, too.

the costs to try and save smokers lives is astronmical///////

anyone who smokes shouldnt be covered by health insurance for smoking releated illnesses.....

require the tobacco companies to pay for their ill health..

and smoking around any child should be proscuted as what it really is, child abuse

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

Watching someone smoke themselves to death is, to me, a big shrug.

As stupid as smoking seems to me, I agree. Obviously there are benefits
to
smoking - it calms, energizes, suppresses appetite. Maybe more. And who
is
anyone to say a informed adult cannot make the choice to add some
enjoyment
to his good years at the expense of reducing the number of his bad years?

Helps the finances of the Social Security and Medicare programs, too.

the costs to try and save smokers lives is astronmical///////

there is a net savings due to early deaths. Most smokers drop dead pretty
quickly, not drag on and linger like I shall do.


anyone who smokes shouldnt be covered by health insurance for smoking
releated illnesses.....

require the tobacco companies to pay for their ill health..

give away smokes for free, and save Medicare and Social Security!!!!


and smoking around any child should be proscuted as what it really is,
child abuse


not just around children - around me too! Stop forcing your wishes on me.
Same goes for a lot of things, not just smoking.

On 9/15/2015 3:38 PM, bob haller wrote:

Watching someone smoke themselves to death is, to me, a big shrug.

As stupid as smoking seems to me, I agree. Obviously there are benefits
to smoking - it calms, energizes, suppresses appetite. Maybe more. And
who is anyone to say a informed adult cannot make the choice to add some
enjoyment to his good years at the expense of reducing the number of his
bad years?

Helps the finances of the Social Security and Medicare programs, too.

the costs to try and save smokers lives is astronmical///////

anyone who smokes shouldnt be covered by health insurance for smoking
releated illnesses.....

What about folks who drink? Are overweight? Don't exercise? Don't
eat right? Don't get the proper amount of sleep? Use recreational
drugs? Consume too much caffeine? Work long hours? etc. Each of
these have associated costs. Where do you draw the line?

require the tobacco companies to pay for their ill health..

In *theory*, the individual pays the cost for their "bad habits"
(along with genetic issues). In *reality*, we subsidize bad behaviors
(just like we subsidize bad policies).

Should insurers rate folks *individually*? I.e., assess *your* particular
"expected costs" and set the premium based on that? Stop grouping
folks into broad classes to distribute the risk?

and smoking around any child should be proscuted as what it really is, child
abuse

What about folks with "tempers"? Alcoholics? Addicts (of any sort)?
People who are psychologically "unfit"?

It's relatively easy to come up with a list that just grows -- each addition
"making sense" (to someone).

N.B. I am not taking a stand on any of these issues. Rather, pointing
out how easily this sort of thinking can get out of hand.

I have a buddy who believes healthcare should be "free". Of course, that
means we all pay for each other. Should I, then, be able to *prevent*
him from indulging in the habits that he has (smoking, poor sleeping
habits, diet, etc.) on the grounds that *I* am paying for *his*
healthcare?

From cradle to grave, a cigarette smoker is the cheapest to insure. Cancer and chemo therapy is relatively cheap.
They die early and never collect their Social Security and often lose the value of their retirement annuity.

It's the carbohydrate/sugar/boozers that cost the most. Their biggest expense is often caused by type 3 diabetes and a stroke, followed by years
in a nursing home. Now that's expensive!

On 9/15/2015 7:18 PM, Don Y wrote:


I have a buddy who believes healthcare should be "free". Of course, that
means we all pay for each other. Should I, then, be able to *prevent*
him from indulging in the habits that he has (smoking, poor sleeping
habits, diet, etc.) on the grounds that *I* am paying for *his*
healthcare?

You bring up a good point. Prohibition did not work though. I can't
imagine if it was suddenly against the law to make/sell/consume tobacco,
alcohol, sugar, firearms.

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 4:53:58 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 9/15/2015 2:29 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 2:51:59 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

(sigh) If that's what "retirement" is, count me out! :-/ I can't
imagine people spending a lifetime *working* -- doing something largely
because they HAVE TO -- and *not* coming up with a rich bucket list to
look forward to in their retirement (when, hopefully, you have the time,
health *and* re$ource$ to do so)!

Several years ago I was still working full time running service calls and
working on installations. My friend GB who was 71 at the time and still
working, died in his sleep as we were finishing up a job. Me and my brother
were at the jobsite when we found out that our friend had passed away the
night before. GB was a 71 year old juvenile delinquent who'd lost a lung to
cancer but he couldn't put the cigarettes down. He hid them from me and my
brother because he knew we'd chew him out for it. He hid his smoking from
his wife, his daughters and his sisters because they'd go after him worse
than us guys would. It killed him in the end and if he'd just thrown the
damn cigarettes away, he'd be alive today. I'm still angry about it. 8-(

His choice to smoke -- or not -- is his decision; he's answerable to himself
and to his immediate family (to a lesser extent). I don't believe anyone has
the right to impose their own sense of morality on another. People do
stupid things throughout their lives. I guess I want the right to do the
things that *I* want to do that *you* might consider "stupid". And, I'm
willing to trade my ability to impose my notions on *your* "stupidity" in
order to gain that right!

I am more concerned about those who "just got screwed" for no (apparent)
reason (i.e., weren't smokers, skydivers, having unprotected sex, drug
users, etc.). I've watched two folks die of ALS in recent years; another
of esophageal Ca; AFAICT, none did anything to "deserve" these maladies.

Watching someone smoke themselves to death is, to me, a big shrug.

Watching someone sit in front of a TV/computer (when they have other
opportunities!) is a similar shrug.

[When I think of folks like this, I ask myself, "Why do they get out of *bed*
in the morning?? Are they actually looking forward to living their lives
in this way?" It's not an indictment of their actions but, rather, a
genuine wonder: *why*??]

You must understand that we cared about him. He didn't just hurt himself, he hurt everyone who cared about him. I get very upset when I see someone I care about killing themselves by slow suicide. GB knew we all cared about him and knew it would upset us if we caught him smoking. The Libertarian in me believes any adult should be able to do whatever he/she/it wants as long as they don't harm anyone else. The operative word is "harm". If they know their self destructive behavior will cause severe emotional distress to those who care about them, what would you call that? I call that hurting friends and family. Those who inhale the byproducts of combustion from burning mind and body destroying substances are drug addicts and complete idiots. Perhaps I'm strange in some way but seeing that kind of behavior angers me. _

[8~{} Uncle Strange Monster

On 9/15/2015 3:52 PM, Don Y wrote:


Obviously a different situation that that of my friend (my condolences).
*He* is perfectly able to live a normal, active life. But, *chooses* to
watch TV all day long. One neighbor (70-ish) is similarly inclined
(internet or TV). Another *would* spend the day in his over-stuffed
chair -- if his wife hadn't placed limits on his TV-time (the rest of
the time, he appears to spend "eating out" -- as I never see him doing
anything in the yard, swiming in the pool, etc.)

(sigh) If that's what "retirement" is, count me out! :-/ I can't
imagine people spending a lifetime *working* -- doing something largely
because they HAVE TO -- and *not* coming up with a rich bucket list
to look forward to in their retirement (when, hopefully, you have the
time, health *and* re$ource$ to do so)!


I'm 20% retired and I'm enjoying whatever I can do. Extra time, extra
money make life a bit of fun while we can. Next year I'm going to
retire another 10% or 20%. My wife and I have a list of things we want
to do and we do them as weather and mood allows.

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 6:41:25 PM UTC-5, noname wrote:
From cradle to grave, a cigarette smoker is the cheapest to insure. Cancer and chemo therapy is relatively cheap.
They die early and never collect their Social Security and often lose the value of their retirement annuity.

It's the carbohydrate/sugar/boozers that cost the most. Their biggest expense is often caused by type 3 diabetes and a stroke, followed by years
in a nursing home. Now that's expensive!

Me and two of my brothers each dropped 100 pounds when we challenged each other to cut out sugar sweetened soft drinks and iced tea. We all had something in common which was sweating like a thunderstorm while working in hot weather. We grew up drinking sweet iced tea and drank it by the gallon. We loved Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Dr.Pepper and gallons of Mountain Dew. When I cut the liquid sugar out of my diet, I lost 100lbs in two months. I don't have hanging folds of skin which I believe is because I was very active. Little brother turned out the best because he hadn't been damaging himself for as long a period of time as the older two of us. I used to have high blood sugar but now it tests within normal range when the nurses check it three times a day. Of course I'm no longer drinking liquid sugar. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Sweet Monster

On 9/15/2015 6:26 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 4:53:58 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

You must understand that we cared about him.

I assumed that. However, I still stand by my assertion that I'll gladly
refrain from imposing MY will on *you* in order to ensure *you* can't
impose yours on *me*!

The fact taht he (knowingly) hurt others is a testament to his
character (or character flaws). But, you're similarly to blame:
your character "flaw" of "giving a sh*t" :-/

He didn't just hurt himself, he
hurt everyone who cared about him. I get very upset when I see someone I
care about killing themselves by slow suicide.

What about folks who make bad investment decisions? Or, who pick
bad "life partners"? Or, who have offspring when it's "obvious"
that they aren't prepared/qualified to be (good) parents??

You can come up with all sorts of rationalizations to justify
whatever "rules" *you* think SOMEONE ELSE should follow; but, they
can just as easily come up with rules for *you* -- that you might
not agree with!

GB knew we all cared about
him and knew it would upset us if we caught him smoking. The Libertarian in
me believes any adult should be able to do whatever he/she/it wants as long
as they don't harm anyone else. The operative word is "harm". If they know
their self destructive behavior will cause severe emotional distress to
those who care about them, what would you call that?

Ans: Their choice!

What are you advocating? That folks should ensure no one cares about them
and, thus, obtain the greatest "liberties" for themselves in doing so?

I call that hurting
friends and family. Those who inhale the byproducts of combustion from
burning mind and body destroying substances are drug addicts and complete
idiots. Perhaps I'm strange in some way but seeing that kind of behavior
angers me. _

There are lots of behaviors that I object to. I've learned not to let them
"anger me" -- because I don't have a right to impose my judgements on
another being. All I can do is try to be "responsible" with the life
*I* have been given. And, to offer assistance/support to others if
I can -- even if what they are wanting to do goes against my beliefs or
practices.

A lover once asked me: (quote) "Is suicide justified?" She worked at
a suicide prevention hotline which is probably why the subject was
on her mind.

I *immediately* (i.e., without even THINKING about the question)
replied: "In what circumstances?"

She wouldn't give me even *that* much "wiggle room": "Is suicide
justified?" I.e., forget the "circumstances". Does a person have
the right to take their own life?

This is a more fundamental question. You don't get the luxury of
being able to qualify your response with some set of conditions
(that make it easier/more comfortable for you to adhere to that
opinion). I.e., if it's justified in some set of circumstances,
then why isn't it in *all* circumstances??

Applying your above argument wrt your friend, what claim would you
have on him if *he* opted to commit suicide with pills, a handgun,
etc.? What's the difference in his chosen approach to that outcome??

On 9/15/2015 6:40 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/15/2015 3:52 PM, Don Y wrote:

(sigh) If that's what "retirement" is, count me out! :-/ I can't
imagine people spending a lifetime *working* -- doing something largely
because they HAVE TO -- and *not* coming up with a rich bucket list
to look forward to in their retirement (when, hopefully, you have the
time, health *and* re$ource$ to do so)!

I'm 20% retired and I'm enjoying whatever I can do. Extra time, extra money
make life a bit of fun while we can. Next year I'm going to retire another 10%
or 20%. My wife and I have a list of things we want to do and we do them as
weather and mood allows.

Depending on who you ask, I've been retired for a couple of decades! :

In reality, I've been working, all along -- but, able to pick what
I work on. Given that my "vocation" is also my "avocation", you can
argue that it's not really work... :-/

But, I rely on being physically and mentally fit in order to do these
things. I dread the idea of losing either mental or physical abilities
and the lost opportunities that would ensue.

Moral of story: do what you love while you can!

obviously none of you have seen the costs of treating COPD, brought about by smoking. or high blood pressure from smoking and treating the strokes caused by smoking.

smokers dont just die, they malinger a long time, and its bad for those left behind. like my neighbors son who watched close up his dad and now his mom die.

healthcare costs for smokers should be rolled into the tobacco products consumed.

On 9/15/2015 4:41 PM, noname wrote:
From cradle to grave, a cigarette smoker is the cheapest to insure. Cancer and
chemo therapy is relatively cheap.

From friends going through this, I think they would argue differently.
Rounds of chemo get expensive, fast! My esophageal Ca friend reached
his "lifetime radiation dosage" before succumbing to his cancer. That's
one helluva lot of exposure!

They die early and never collect their Social Security and often lose the value
of their retirement annuity.

Many people now live *through* Ca. But, it's not like their healthcare
costs stop just because the Ca seems under control.

It's the carbohydrate/sugar/boozers that cost the most. Their biggest expense
is often caused by type 3 diabetes and a stroke, followed by years in a nursing
home. Now that's expensive!

If you talk to a financial planner, you will be asked (or estimated) as to
your life expectancy. You'll then find that, regardless of how old you
think you'll be, the last two years of your life will consume a HUGE
portion of your savings (i.e., regardless of whether YOU are footing
the bill or Medicare, insurance, etc.) for end of life care.

It takes very little time to burn through lots of resources. And, with
very little overall effect (you're still going to die). It's only recently
that people are realistically (and publicly) having discussions about
these sorts of issues.

E.g., chemo therapy for terminal patients actually reduces quality of life
AND wastes resources.

We need an emphasis on personal responsibility AND personal *choice*
(instead of some folks who are terrified of acknowledging "death"
setting policies for EVERYONE approaching it!)

On 9/15/2015 6:25 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/15/2015 7:18 PM, Don Y wrote:

I have a buddy who believes healthcare should be "free". Of course, that
means we all pay for each other. Should I, then, be able to *prevent*
him from indulging in the habits that he has (smoking, poor sleeping
habits, diet, etc.) on the grounds that *I* am paying for *his*
healthcare?

You bring up a good point. Prohibition did not work though. I can't imagine
if it was suddenly against the law to make/sell/consume tobacco, alcohol,
sugar, firearms.

You can't legislate morality. People have to have an innate sense of
personal responsibility in order to "do the right thing".

I have a friend who is significantly overweight.

Developed diabetes. "No big deal" -- takes meds for it and
largely leads life/diet/lack-of-exercise just like always did!

Had a heart attack. "No big deal" -- takes ....

Had a stroke. "No big deal" -- ...

Of course, the insurance premiums don't cover the costs of care.
So, "we" are paying for the refusal to make lifestyle adjustments
that would (could?) have prevented each of these problems.

And, imagine the example being (NOT!) set for the family...

I think the only way for people to truly look into the costs of
their behaviors is to expose them to those real FINANCIAL costs.
Perhaps tax the *benefits* of the insurance plan as income.
So, the individual doesn't bear the entire cost (which is the
whole point of insurance) but, likewise, doesn't get off "scott
free". If you stand a chance of losing your home, etc. *then*
you might rethink whether that extra helping of fat+carbs is
really what you want to be shoveling in your pie hole! And,
maybe think a bit harder about whether or not you want to
sit in front of the TV *or* get up and walk for 30 minutes...

On 9/15/2015 8:14 PM, bob haller wrote:
obviously none of you have seen the costs of treating COPD, brought about by
smoking. or high blood pressure from smoking and treating the strokes caused
by smoking.

smokers dont just die, they malinger a long time, and its bad for those left
behind. like my neighbors son who watched close up his dad and now his mom
die.

healthcare costs for smokers should be rolled into the tobacco products
consumed.

Should condoms carry the costs of treating HIV? Oh, wait -- condoms
*prevent* the spread of HIV. So, make everyone pay a fixed fee and
get a *rebate* if they purchase condoms?? :-/

What about alcohol? Should the costs of drunk driving, enforcement,
etc. be rolled into the cost of every beverage? Likewise, the costs
of "distracted driving" rolled into the cost of your cell phone?
(even if you are a responsible driver??)

What about "unhealthy foods"? Or, supersized beverages?? Tax
those to discourage their consumption (yet another "sin" tax)?

People resent being made to pay "extra" for something that they
like/want just because someone, somewhere decided it was "bad".
Yet, when they have a health problem, they want no expense spared
to "fix" their problem!

Again, the solution is to get people to be responsible for
their own welfare and not think they can do whatever they
want without consequence.

Don Y wrote:
On 9/15/2015 3:38 PM, bob haller wrote:

Watching someone smoke themselves to death is, to me, a big shrug.

As stupid as smoking seems to me, I agree. Obviously there are benefits
to smoking - it calms, energizes, suppresses appetite. Maybe more. And
who is anyone to say a informed adult cannot make the choice to add some
enjoyment to his good years at the expense of reducing the number of his
bad years?

Helps the finances of the Social Security and Medicare programs, too.

the costs to try and save smokers lives is astronmical///////

anyone who smokes shouldnt be covered by health insurance for smoking
releated illnesses.....

What about folks who drink? Are overweight? Don't exercise? Don't
eat right? Don't get the proper amount of sleep? Use recreational
drugs? Consume too much caffeine? Work long hours? etc. Each of
these have associated costs. Where do you draw the line?

require the tobacco companies to pay for their ill health..

In *theory*, the individual pays the cost for their "bad habits"
(along with genetic issues). In *reality*, we subsidize bad behaviors
(just like we subsidize bad policies).

Should insurers rate folks *individually*? I.e., assess *your* particular
"expected costs" and set the premium based on that? Stop grouping
folks into broad classes to distribute the risk?

and smoking around any child should be proscuted as what it really is,
child
abuse

What about folks with "tempers"? Alcoholics? Addicts (of any sort)?
People who are psychologically "unfit"?

It's relatively easy to come up with a list that just grows -- each
addition
"making sense" (to someone).

N.B. I am not taking a stand on any of these issues. Rather, pointing
out how easily this sort of thinking can get out of hand.

I have a buddy who believes healthcare should be "free". Of course, that
means we all pay for each other. Should I, then, be able to *prevent*
him from indulging in the habits that he has (smoking, poor sleeping
habits, diet, etc.) on the grounds that *I* am paying for *his*
healthcare?

I always wonder why healthcare should be provided to people who don't
care of themselves. Our system should pay more attention to preventive
medicine than treatment oriented medicine. It should start from training
medical student. Also note, N. American doctors prescribe more
drugs than any other in the world.

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
obviously none of you have seen the costs of treating COPD, brought about
by smoking. or high blood pressure from smoking and treating the strokes
caused by smoking.

smokers dont just die, they malinger a long time, and its bad for those
left behind. like my neighbors son who watched close up his dad and now
his mom die.

Most smokers die relatively quickly. All in all, smokers save us healthcare
costs and Social Security payments. Puff away, fools.


healthcare costs for smokers should be rolled into the tobacco products
consumed.

They have been. Don't you recall the high taxes and the big litigation
settlements by the states? But they ****ed all that money away, selling off
the stream of income to Wall Street for a lump sum payment that was quickly
flushed down the toilet of state spending.

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 9:28:04 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 9/15/2015 6:26 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 4:53:58 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

You must understand that we cared about him.

I assumed that. However, I still stand by my assertion that I'll gladly
refrain from imposing MY will on *you* in order to ensure *you* can't
impose yours on *me*!

The fact taht he (knowingly) hurt others is a testament to his
character (or character flaws). But, you're similarly to blame:
your character "flaw" of "giving a sh*t" :-/

He didn't just hurt himself, he
hurt everyone who cared about him. I get very upset when I see someone I
care about killing themselves by slow suicide.

What about folks who make bad investment decisions? Or, who pick
bad "life partners"? Or, who have offspring when it's "obvious"
that they aren't prepared/qualified to be (good) parents??

You can come up with all sorts of rationalizations to justify
whatever "rules" *you* think SOMEONE ELSE should follow; but, they
can just as easily come up with rules for *you* -- that you might
not agree with!

GB knew we all cared about
him and knew it would upset us if we caught him smoking. The Libertarian in
me believes any adult should be able to do whatever he/she/it wants as long
as they don't harm anyone else. The operative word is "harm". If they know
their self destructive behavior will cause severe emotional distress to
those who care about them, what would you call that?

Ans: Their choice!

What are you advocating? That folks should ensure no one cares about them
and, thus, obtain the greatest "liberties" for themselves in doing so?

I call that hurting
friends and family. Those who inhale the byproducts of combustion from
burning mind and body destroying substances are drug addicts and complete
idiots. Perhaps I'm strange in some way but seeing that kind of behavior
angers me. _

There are lots of behaviors that I object to. I've learned not to let them
"anger me" -- because I don't have a right to impose my judgements on
another being. All I can do is try to be "responsible" with the life
*I* have been given. And, to offer assistance/support to others if
I can -- even if what they are wanting to do goes against my beliefs or
practices.

A lover once asked me: (quote) "Is suicide justified?" She worked at
a suicide prevention hotline which is probably why the subject was
on her mind.

I *immediately* (i.e., without even THINKING about the question)
replied: "In what circumstances?"

She wouldn't give me even *that* much "wiggle room": "Is suicide
justified?" I.e., forget the "circumstances". Does a person have
the right to take their own life?

This is a more fundamental question. You don't get the luxury of
being able to qualify your response with some set of conditions
(that make it easier/more comfortable for you to adhere to that
opinion). I.e., if it's justified in some set of circumstances,
then why isn't it in *all* circumstances??

Applying your above argument wrt your friend, what claim would you
have on him if *he* opted to commit suicide with pills, a handgun,
etc.? What's the difference in his chosen approach to that outcome??

Don't assume I've ever imposed my will on anyone. My ideals are Libertarian but that doesn't mean I can't care about someone who's being self destructive. I'd have to ask, would you stand by and do nothing if you could stop a young person on the edge of the roof of a tall building about to jump off and fall to their death? Would you join the crowd chanting,"Jump! Jump! Jump!"? Many people stopped from committing suicide get help and change their minds but if they're determined, they'll off themselves when no one is watching. You won't find old folks jumping off a building because it hurts too damn much. ^_^

I had to dig around a bit on The Interweb to find some information to plagiarize but there were no real surprises except for the magnitude of the problem.

Approximately 30,000 people commit suicide each year in the U.S. and 80% were men. Overall, males kill themselves at rates that are 4 times higher than females. But in certain age groups men are even more vulnerable. The suicide rate for those ages 20-24 is 5.4 times higher for males than for females of the same age.

In the older age groups suicide is even more a "male problem." After retirement, the suicide rate skyrockets for men, but not for women. Between the ages of 65-74 the rate is 6.3 times higher for males. Between the ages of 75-84, the suicide rate is 7 times higher. And for those over 85, it is nearly 18 times higher for men than it is for women.

Dr.Thomas Joiner proposes that there are three key motivational aspects which contribute to suicide. These a 1) a sense of not belonging, of being alone, 2) a sense of not contributing, of being a burden 3) a capability for suicide, not being afraid to die. All three of these motivations or preconditions must be in place before someone will attempt suicide.

Although women, too, can take their own lives when they suffer at the intersection of "feeling alone, feeling a burden, and not being afraid to die," this is clearly a more male phenomenon. Throughout our lives males take more risks and invite injury more often. We are taught that "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" and "no pain, no gain."

We often invest so much of our lives in our work, when we lose our jobs or retire we feel worthless, unable to contribute. It's a short step to feeling we are a burden on those we love. We also put less effort into developing and maintaining friendships so we can come to feel more and more alone.

There's a lot more on the site where I swiped the information and I think everyone should take a look but I'm not "forcing you". ^_^

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-c...t-people-miss/

http://preview.tinyurl.com/nxnnphp

[8~{} Uncle Pained Monster

On 9/15/2015 9:39 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Don Y wrote:
On 9/15/2015 3:38 PM, bob haller wrote:

Watching someone smoke themselves to death is, to me, a big shrug.

As stupid as smoking seems to me, I agree. Obviously there are benefits
to smoking - it calms, energizes, suppresses appetite. Maybe more. And
who is anyone to say a informed adult cannot make the choice to add some
enjoyment to his good years at the expense of reducing the number of his
bad years?

Helps the finances of the Social Security and Medicare programs, too.

the costs to try and save smokers lives is astronmical///////

anyone who smokes shouldnt be covered by health insurance for smoking
releated illnesses.....

What about folks who drink? Are overweight? Don't exercise? Don't
eat right? Don't get the proper amount of sleep? Use recreational
drugs? Consume too much caffeine? Work long hours? etc. Each of
these have associated costs. Where do you draw the line?

require the tobacco companies to pay for their ill health..

In *theory*, the individual pays the cost for their "bad habits"
(along with genetic issues). In *reality*, we subsidize bad behaviors
(just like we subsidize bad policies).

Should insurers rate folks *individually*? I.e., assess *your* particular
"expected costs" and set the premium based on that? Stop grouping
folks into broad classes to distribute the risk?

and smoking around any child should be proscuted as what it really is,
child
abuse

What about folks with "tempers"? Alcoholics? Addicts (of any sort)?
People who are psychologically "unfit"?

It's relatively easy to come up with a list that just grows -- each
addition
"making sense" (to someone).

N.B. I am not taking a stand on any of these issues. Rather, pointing
out how easily this sort of thinking can get out of hand.

I have a buddy who believes healthcare should be "free". Of course, that
means we all pay for each other. Should I, then, be able to *prevent*
him from indulging in the habits that he has (smoking, poor sleeping
habits, diet, etc.) on the grounds that *I* am paying for *his*
healthcare?

I always wonder why healthcare should be provided to people who don't care of
themselves. Our system should pay more attention to preventive
medicine than treatment oriented medicine.

One of the goals of the ACA was to incentivize providers to shift resources
to preventative measures: free physicals, free health maintenance tests,
free flu shots, etc.

It should start from training medical student.

I think the problem lies with the *consumer* more than the supplier.
People expect to be able to "get fixed" without being "inconvenienced"
(by lifestyle changes, etc.). The consumers end up "training" the
providers to adopt *their* preferences.

SWMBO had a cholesterol problem some years back. MD was ready to
Rx a statin to bring it under control. Instead, she opted to
tackle it with diet and exercise. THAT NIGHT we changed her diet.
Four weeks later, the doctor was *flabbergasted* at the change in
her blood chemistry! No meds, no side-effects from those meds, etc.
And, a healthier lifestyle as an inherent part of the bargain.

How many folks will discipline themselves thusly? Esp if the
other option is "take one of these each day"?

How many times does an MD need to see patients NOT doing the right
things -- and, having to resort to drugs -- before he stops even
*offering* that suggestion as a remedy?

Also note, N. American doctors prescribe more drugs than any other in the world.

I suspect you'll find that Americans *want* "pills" over other, less
expensive (but more *committed*) treatments. E.g., you don't need a pill
to lose weight -- you just have to *burn* more calories than you
*consume*! Ah, but that means you can't have second helpings of that
meal that tastes *so* good (because it has lots of sugar and fat!).

You can bring modest hyperlipidemia under control with diet and
exercise -- instead of resorting to drugs.

You can control much type 2 diabetes (esp "pre-diabetes") with exercise,
weight loss and diet -- instead of resorting to drugs.

You can bring moderate hypertension under control with diet, exercise
and stress reduction techniques -- instead of resorting to drugs.

But, no one wants to "do the heavy lifting" to bring about these
changes. "Can't you just GIVE ME A PILL?"

The other problem with many of these maladies is that their *real*
consequences (heart attack, stroke, blindness, etc.) happen down
the road. In essence, you're dealing with a control system that
has enormous *lag* -- the patient's "control actions" (or lack
thereof!) don't manifest in the "output" for DECADES!!

[People have a tough time losing weight because weight control is
also a system with lots of lag; yet that lag is on the order of
days or weeks (before you see results from your changed diet),
not *years*!]

On 9/15/2015 10:21 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 9:28:04 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

This is a more fundamental question. You don't get the luxury of being
able to qualify your response with some set of conditions (that make it
easier/more comfortable for you to adhere to that opinion). I.e., if it's
justified in some set of circumstances, then why isn't it in *all*
circumstances??

Applying your above argument wrt your friend, what claim would you have on
him if *he* opted to commit suicide with pills, a handgun, etc.? What's
the difference in his chosen approach to that outcome??

Don't assume I've ever imposed my will on anyone. My ideals are Libertarian
but that doesn't mean I can't care about someone who's being self

Sorry, I'm not suggesting that you did/would!

destructive. I'd have to ask, would you stand by and do nothing if you could
stop a young person on the edge of the roof of a tall building about to jump
off and fall to their death?

I would recognize that *I* am not qualified to address that situation.
Just like *I* wouldn't be qualified to address a friend's reluctance
(resistance?) to quitting smoking.

I could tell your "jumper" friend: "Don't jump!" -- just like I could
tell your smoker friend: "Quit smoking!". My reasons/motivation
wouldn't matter -- in either case, *I* wouldn't be the right person
to convince either of these "friends" to do what *I* thought right.

Likewise, if I noticed a "friend" consistently eating tons of red meat,
I would be helpless at convincing him/her to adopt a more "balanced"
diet.

Would you join the crowd chanting,"Jump! Jump!
Jump!"? Many people stopped from committing suicide get help and change
their minds but if they're determined, they'll off themselves when no one is
watching. You won't find old folks jumping off a building because it hurts
too damn much. ^_^

I had to dig around a bit on The Interweb to find some information to
plagiarize but there were no real surprises except for the magnitude of the
problem.

I've known a few people who've taken the "early exit". It's easy to see
the affect their departure has on those left behind. But, it also
suggests the pain they must have been in to take that option.

As I'm not qualified to help any of those survivors "heal", I'd be
equally unqualified at "fixing" whatever problem the "victim" may
have had -- assuming he/she was willing to make that problem *visible*
to me!

On 09/15/2015 11:18 PM, Don Y wrote:
It takes very little time to burn through lots of resources. And, with
very little overall effect (you're still going to die). It's only recently
that people are realistically (and publicly) having discussions about
these sorts of issues.

When I get to the point where I can't take care of myself, I'm going to crawl out to my garage, fire up the generator and then take an eternal
nap. I just hope some do-good-er doesn't find me before the CO does.

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 2:22:33 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 9/15/2015 10:21 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 9:28:04 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

This is a more fundamental question. You don't get the luxury of being
able to qualify your response with some set of conditions (that make it
easier/more comfortable for you to adhere to that opinion). I.e., if it's
justified in some set of circumstances, then why isn't it in *all*
circumstances??

Applying your above argument wrt your friend, what claim would you have on
him if *he* opted to commit suicide with pills, a handgun, etc.? What's
the difference in his chosen approach to that outcome??

Don't assume I've ever imposed my will on anyone. My ideals are Libertarian
but that doesn't mean I can't care about someone who's being self

Sorry, I'm not suggesting that you did/would!

destructive. I'd have to ask, would you stand by and do nothing if you could
stop a young person on the edge of the roof of a tall building about to jump
off and fall to their death?

I would recognize that *I* am not qualified to address that situation.
Just like *I* wouldn't be qualified to address a friend's reluctance
(resistance?) to quitting smoking.

I could tell your "jumper" friend: "Don't jump!" -- just like I could
tell your smoker friend: "Quit smoking!". My reasons/motivation
wouldn't matter -- in either case, *I* wouldn't be the right person
to convince either of these "friends" to do what *I* thought right.

Likewise, if I noticed a "friend" consistently eating tons of red meat,
I would be helpless at convincing him/her to adopt a more "balanced"
diet.

Would you join the crowd chanting,"Jump! Jump!
Jump!"? Many people stopped from committing suicide get help and change
their minds but if they're determined, they'll off themselves when no one is
watching. You won't find old folks jumping off a building because it hurts
too damn much. ^_^

I had to dig around a bit on The Interweb to find some information to
plagiarize but there were no real surprises except for the magnitude of the
problem.

I've known a few people who've taken the "early exit". It's easy to see
the affect their departure has on those left behind. But, it also
suggests the pain they must have been in to take that option.

As I'm not qualified to help any of those survivors "heal", I'd be
equally unqualified at "fixing" whatever problem the "victim" may
have had -- assuming he/she was willing to make that problem *visible*
to me!

Me and my siblings inherited depression from our mother and had to learn how to beat it. I spent some time on the phone with a friend a while back who was going through a very rough patch in his life and had descended into a deep depression. He owns his own business and his knees were as torn up as mine making it difficult for him to work and his wife had experience a heart attack and she was unable to work. On top of that, he was being hounded by creditors. I spent the time to explain the way I beat depression. I told him to get mad at the depression monster(no pun) and tell that SOB it wasn't going to beat him, to be stubborn, fight it at every turn and don't give up. When I called him later to check up on him, he told me that the strategy had worked and he was climbing out of that well I'd warned him not to get trapped in. You don't have to be a psychologist with a fancy diploma hanging on the wall, all you have to be is a human being who's willing to lend an ear and be a friend. I've lost too many friends to suicide because I had no idea how much pain they were in and I wish I could have gotten them some help or at least talked to them about what was troubling them so much that they thought suicide was the only way out. I'm not going to stand by and do nothing because I never want to see it happen again. 8-(

[8~{} Uncle Stable Monster

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 3:39:54 AM UTC-5, Nate wrote:
On 09/15/2015 11:18 PM, Don Y wrote:
It takes very little time to burn through lots of resources. And, with
very little overall effect (you're still going to die). It's only recently
that people are realistically (and publicly) having discussions about
these sorts of issues.

When I get to the point where I can't take care of myself, I'm going to crawl out to my garage, fire up the generator and then take an eternal
nap. I just hope some do-good-er doesn't find me before the CO does.

Can I come by and cheer you on? I lost friend to self inflicted CO poisoning. He was a Vietnam vet who suffered from a service related injury and was in horrible chronic pain. Thanks to our wonderful DEA, he couldn't get enough of the help he needed from the VA hospital with the pain he was in. We have a wonderful VA hospital here in Birmingham and I wish he'd talked to a mental healthcare professional there. He'd lost his mother who was his anchor and after that he spiraled down into a very deep depression until he gave up on life. He was found dead sitting in his car inside his garage. We friends wanted to believe it was an accident but I doubt he would have started the car without first opening the garage door no mater how drunk he may have been. 8-(

[8~{} Uncle Saddened Monster

On 9/16/2015 1:39 AM, Nate wrote:
On 09/15/2015 11:18 PM, Don Y wrote:
It takes very little time to burn through lots of resources. And, with
very little overall effect (you're still going to die). It's only recently
that people are realistically (and publicly) having discussions about
these sorts of issues.

When I get to the point where I can't take care of myself, I'm going to crawl
out to my garage, fire up the generator and then take an eternal nap. I just
hope some do-good-er doesn't find me before the CO does.

A friend has plans to do the pills and booze approach. Another
has been stockpiling her narcotics for that eventual day.

Sad that you have to work *against* The System to do something that
should be your *right*! "No, we're going to keep you alive
regardless of how bad your quality of life becomes! Because we're
so scared of dying, ourselves, that we want to be scared FOR YOU!"

I picked up a copy of _Final Exit_ decades ago when I was in school.
I suspect other similar books have been written...

On 9/16/2015 7:12 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 2:22:33 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

I've known a few people who've taken the "early exit". It's easy to see
the affect their departure has on those left behind. But, it also
suggests the pain they must have been in to take that option.

As I'm not qualified to help any of those survivors "heal", I'd be equally
unqualified at "fixing" whatever problem the "victim" may have had --
assuming he/she was willing to make that problem *visible* to me!

Me and my siblings inherited depression from our mother and had to learn how
to beat it. I spent some time on the phone with a friend a while back who
was going through a very rough patch in his life and had descended into a
deep depression. He owns his own business and his knees were as torn up as
mine making it difficult for him to work and his wife had experience a heart
attack and she was unable to work. On top of that, he was being hounded by
creditors. I spent the time to explain the way I beat depression. I told him
to get mad at the depression monster(no pun) and tell that SOB it wasn't
going to beat him, to be stubborn, fight it at every turn and don't give up.
When I called him later to check up on him, he told me that the strategy had
worked and he was climbing out of that well I'd warned him not to get

What if it hadn't? What if he heard your words and decided he didn't have
"that" in him? And, as a result, hastened his decision? How do you
*know* your "treatment" will present an improvement/cure and not
precipitate the very event you are trying to avoid?

trapped in. You don't have to be a psychologist with a fancy diploma hanging
on the wall, all you have to be is a human being who's willing to lend an
ear and be a friend. I've lost too many friends to suicide because I had no
idea how much pain they were in and I wish I could have gotten them some
help or at least talked to them about what was troubling them so much that
they thought suicide was the only way out. I'm not going to stand by and do
nothing because I never want to see it happen again. 8-(

SWMBO had a friend she kept in contact with (after moving ~1500 miles).
The few times that *I* answered her calls, I'd invariably grumble to
myself "drunk, again!" as I'd hear her partially slurred speech (her
friend was a HEAVY drinker; a bottle of wine with each meal was *nothing*
to her!).

Years later, when she was Dx'd with ALS, I was angry with myself -- NOT
for thinking her a drunk (she *was* a drunk!) but, rather, for not
picking up on the fact that she might NOT have been "drunk" during each
of those phone calls; the speech problem may have been an early consequence
of the ALS manifesting in her motor skills. Surely, *I* should have been
able to spot this FOR her, right?

After quite a while of beating myself up over this, I finally realized:
hey, I'm not there. I'm not her doctor. I'm not one of the friends
that she interacts with on a weekly basis IN PERSON (to see whether
or not she is drinking while her speech is impaired). In short, *I*
was not QUALIFIED to make that Dx. If I want to be angry, I should
be angry that her close, nearby friends hadn't picked up on this aspect
of her behavior and suggested she look into it! I'm not responsible
for *her* health and well-being.

Had I made the obvious comment: "I see you've been drinking again..."
it would have either been met with an *honest* denial (assuming she truly
was stone cold sober and the slurring was a sign of "something else" -- ALS)
*or* a denial that was (or that I would consider) to be a lie because
she didn't want to admit (to herself?) that she had a drinking problem
("Hey, it's Friday evening! So I decided to have a couple of glasses
of wine... at least I'm not out DRIVING! Give me a break!!")

People are responsible for their own welfare and actions. Close friends/family
can try to influence their actions, in that regard. But, its still up
to the individual to "get themselves fixed". Pulling that "jumper" off
the ledge doesn't mean he won't try again tomorrow -- after verifying that
you are NOT nearby to "interfere"!

On 9/15/2015 4:29 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 2:51:59 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 9/15/2015 11:58 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 12:35:43 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

Frankly, I can't see a need/desire to sit and rot my brain watching
streaming video (on a PC *or* a TV). OTOH, I have a friend that spends
his retirement doing exactly -- and exclusively! -- that! (Gee, all those
years he was working, do you think he was muttering to himself: "I can't
wait to retire so I can sit at home and watch TV all day!!"?)

I can't do much more than sit in this hospital bed and watch videos. Mostly
news and entertainment but I really like documentaries and educational
videos. If I was at home, I'd be downloading and experimenting with all
sorts of software. I've even been doing some tech support via telephone from
my bed. I only turn the TV on when I'm eating because I must take my
Chromebook off the table. The last thing I want is to be retired and if I
can get back on my feet again, I'll be working until I drop dead on the job.
I'd be even more bonkers if I didn't have my Chromebook which allows me to
interact with people from all over the world. It's so fraking frustrating to
be unable to get up and go out at a moments notice, dammit! o_O

Obviously a different situation that that of my friend (my condolences).
*He* is perfectly able to live a normal, active life. But, *chooses* to
watch TV all day long. One neighbor (70-ish) is similarly inclined
(internet or TV). Another *would* spend the day in his over-stuffed
chair -- if his wife hadn't placed limits on his TV-time (the rest of
the time, he appears to spend "eating out" -- as I never see him doing
anything in the yard, swiming in the pool, etc.)

(sigh) If that's what "retirement" is, count me out! :-/ I can't
imagine people spending a lifetime *working* -- doing something largely
because they HAVE TO -- and *not* coming up with a rich bucket list
to look forward to in their retirement (when, hopefully, you have the
time, health *and* re$ource$ to do so)!

Several years ago I was still working full time running service calls and working on installations. My friend GB who was 71 at the time and still working, died in his sleep as we were finishing up a job. Me and my brother were at the jobsite when we found out that our friend had passed away the night before. GB was a 71 year old juvenile delinquent who'd lost a lung to cancer but he couldn't put the cigarettes down. He hid them from me and my brother because he knew we'd chew him out for it. He hid his smoking from his wife, his daughters and his sisters because they'd go after him worse than us guys would. It killed him in the end and if he'd just thrown the damn cigarettes away, he'd be alive today. I'm still angry about it. 8-(

[8~{} Uncle Angry Monster


I know how you feel. Both my parents died due to smoking related diseases.

--
Maggie

On 9/15/2015 5:21 PM, taxed and spent wrote:
"Don Y" wrote in message
...
On 9/15/2015 2:29 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 2:51:59 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

(sigh) If that's what "retirement" is, count me out! :-/ I can't
imagine people spending a lifetime *working* -- doing something largely
because they HAVE TO -- and *not* coming up with a rich bucket list to
look forward to in their retirement (when, hopefully, you have the time,
health *and* re$ource$ to do so)!

Several years ago I was still working full time running service calls and
working on installations. My friend GB who was 71 at the time and still
working, died in his sleep as we were finishing up a job. Me and my
brother
were at the jobsite when we found out that our friend had passed away the
night before. GB was a 71 year old juvenile delinquent who'd lost a lung
to
cancer but he couldn't put the cigarettes down. He hid them from me and
my
brother because he knew we'd chew him out for it. He hid his smoking from
his wife, his daughters and his sisters because they'd go after him worse
than us guys would. It killed him in the end and if he'd just thrown the
damn cigarettes away, he'd be alive today. I'm still angry about it. 8-(

His choice to smoke -- or not -- is his decision; he's answerable to
himself
and to his immediate family (to a lesser extent). I don't believe anyone
has
the right to impose their own sense of morality on another. People do
stupid things throughout their lives. I guess I want the right to do the
things that *I* want to do that *you* might consider "stupid". And, I'm
willing to trade my ability to impose my notions on *your* "stupidity" in
order to gain that right!

I am more concerned about those who "just got screwed" for no (apparent)
reason (i.e., weren't smokers, skydivers, having unprotected sex, drug
users, etc.). I've watched two folks die of ALS in recent years; another
of esophageal Ca; AFAICT, none did anything to "deserve" these maladies.

Watching someone smoke themselves to death is, to me, a big shrug.

As stupid as smoking seems to me, I agree. Obviously there are benefits to
smoking - it calms, energizes, suppresses appetite. Maybe more. And who is
anyone to say a informed adult cannot make the choice to add some enjoyment
to his good years at the expense of reducing the number of his bad years?

Helps the finances of the Social Security and Medicare programs, too.



My parents second hand smoke causes me numerous illnesses, including,
asthma and hearing loss. I asked them many times to stop smoking, but
they'd just say it was their "damn life". It wasn't just their life.
Then ended up killing themselves due to smoking, but they also inflicted
disease and health problems onto me.

There should be laws against smoking around children.

--
Maggie

On 9/15/2015 6:18 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/15/2015 3:38 PM, bob haller wrote:

Watching someone smoke themselves to death is, to me, a big shrug.

As stupid as smoking seems to me, I agree. Obviously there are benefits
to smoking - it calms, energizes, suppresses appetite. Maybe more. And
who is anyone to say a informed adult cannot make the choice to add some
enjoyment to his good years at the expense of reducing the number of his
bad years?

Helps the finances of the Social Security and Medicare programs, too.

the costs to try and save smokers lives is astronmical///////

anyone who smokes shouldnt be covered by health insurance for smoking
releated illnesses.....

What about folks who drink? Are overweight? Don't exercise? Don't
eat right? Don't get the proper amount of sleep? Use recreational
drugs? Consume too much caffeine? Work long hours? etc. Each of
these have associated costs. Where do you draw the line?

How about drawing the line where one freedom infringes on someone elses
health?

require the tobacco companies to pay for their ill health..


In *theory*, the individual pays the cost for their "bad habits"
(along with genetic issues). In *reality*, we subsidize bad behaviors
(just like we subsidize bad policies).

Smoking wreaks, literally. It gets in peoples clothes and hair and even
if they aren't dragging on a cigarette they're still poisoning people
around them with the chemicals and stench in their clothes.

Should insurers rate folks *individually*? I.e., assess *your* particular
"expected costs" and set the premium based on that? Stop grouping
folks into broad classes to distribute the risk?

Don't they already do that?


and smoking around any child should be proscuted as what it really is,
child
abuse


What about folks with "tempers"? Alcoholics? Addicts (of any sort)?
People who are psychologically "unfit"?

Tempers often get people in trouble and sent to mandatory anger
management counseling. The others are supposedly diseases people need
treatment for.

It's relatively easy to come up with a list that just grows -- each
addition
"making sense" (to someone).

N.B. I am not taking a stand on any of these issues. Rather, pointing
out how easily this sort of thinking can get out of hand.

I have a buddy who believes healthcare should be "free". Of course, that
means we all pay for each other. Should I, then, be able to *prevent*
him from indulging in the habits that he has (smoking, poor sleeping
habits, diet, etc.) on the grounds that *I* am paying for *his*
healthcare?

Good question.

--
Maggie

On 9/15/2015 8:26 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 4:53:58 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 9/15/2015 2:29 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 2:51:59 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

(sigh) If that's what "retirement" is, count me out! :-/ I can't
imagine people spending a lifetime *working* -- doing something largely
because they HAVE TO -- and *not* coming up with a rich bucket list to
look forward to in their retirement (when, hopefully, you have the time,
health *and* re$ource$ to do so)!

Several years ago I was still working full time running service calls and
working on installations. My friend GB who was 71 at the time and still
working, died in his sleep as we were finishing up a job. Me and my brother
were at the jobsite when we found out that our friend had passed away the
night before. GB was a 71 year old juvenile delinquent who'd lost a lung to
cancer but he couldn't put the cigarettes down. He hid them from me and my
brother because he knew we'd chew him out for it. He hid his smoking from
his wife, his daughters and his sisters because they'd go after him worse
than us guys would. It killed him in the end and if he'd just thrown the
damn cigarettes away, he'd be alive today. I'm still angry about it. 8-(

His choice to smoke -- or not -- is his decision; he's answerable to himself
and to his immediate family (to a lesser extent). I don't believe anyone has
the right to impose their own sense of morality on another. People do
stupid things throughout their lives. I guess I want the right to do the
things that *I* want to do that *you* might consider "stupid". And, I'm
willing to trade my ability to impose my notions on *your* "stupidity" in
order to gain that right!

I am more concerned about those who "just got screwed" for no (apparent)
reason (i.e., weren't smokers, skydivers, having unprotected sex, drug
users, etc.). I've watched two folks die of ALS in recent years; another
of esophageal Ca; AFAICT, none did anything to "deserve" these maladies.

Watching someone smoke themselves to death is, to me, a big shrug.

Watching someone sit in front of a TV/computer (when they have other
opportunities!) is a similar shrug.

[When I think of folks like this, I ask myself, "Why do they get out of *bed*
in the morning?? Are they actually looking forward to living their lives
in this way?" It's not an indictment of their actions but, rather, a
genuine wonder: *why*??]

You must understand that we cared about him. He didn't just hurt himself, he hurt everyone who cared about him. I get very upset when I see someone I care about killing themselves by slow suicide. GB knew we all cared about him and knew it would upset us if we caught him smoking. The Libertarian in me believes any adult should be able to do whatever he/she/it wants as long as they don't harm anyone else. The operative word is "harm". If they know their self destructive behavior will cause severe emotional distress to those who care about them, what would you call that? I call that hurting friends and family. Those who inhale the byproducts of combustion from burning mind and body destroying substances are drug addicts and complete idiots. Perhaps I'm strange in some way but seeing that kind of behavior angers me. _

[8~{} Uncle Strange Monster


I feel the same way.

--
Maggie

On 9/16/2015 3:34 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 9/15/2015 6:18 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/15/2015 3:38 PM, bob haller wrote:

Watching someone smoke themselves to death is, to me, a big shrug.

As stupid as smoking seems to me, I agree. Obviously there are benefits
to smoking - it calms, energizes, suppresses appetite. Maybe more. And
who is anyone to say a informed adult cannot make the choice to add some
enjoyment to his good years at the expense of reducing the number of his
bad years?

Helps the finances of the Social Security and Medicare programs, too.

the costs to try and save smokers lives is astronmical///////

anyone who smokes shouldnt be covered by health insurance for smoking
releated illnesses.....

What about folks who drink? Are overweight? Don't exercise? Don't
eat right? Don't get the proper amount of sleep? Use recreational
drugs? Consume too much caffeine? Work long hours? etc. Each of
these have associated costs. Where do you draw the line?

How about drawing the line where one freedom infringes on someone elses
health?

But, what do you consider an "infringement"? Does "setting a bad example"
(for your kids) count as infringing on their (future) health? Does
engaging in a behavior that distresses folks who see that behavior as
harmful to *yourself* constitute a burden on them?

It's a slippery slope -- paternalism can be rationalized at all sorts
of levels. How does *your* not wearing a helmet when you ride your
motorcycle infringe on *my* health? (it *may* infringe on my finances
if we end up in a collision together)

require the tobacco companies to pay for their ill health..

In *theory*, the individual pays the cost for their "bad habits"
(along with genetic issues). In *reality*, we subsidize bad behaviors
(just like we subsidize bad policies).

Smoking wreaks, literally. It gets in peoples clothes and hair and even
if they aren't dragging on a cigarette they're still poisoning people
around them with the chemicals and stench in their clothes.

I get visibly ill when I am around someone "wearing scent" (perfume,
strong deodorants, etc.). Do I have a "right" to prohibit them from
wearing such things? Maybe make it illegal to manufacture anything
that could potentially harm some "bystander"?

The smell of coffee makes me nauseous. Should we outlaw that just
for my sake? Or, should I learn to avoid situations where I might
be exposed to it? (much easier to do than avoiding situations where
someone is "wearing scent")

Should insurers rate folks *individually*? I.e., assess *your* particular
"expected costs" and set the premium based on that? Stop grouping
folks into broad classes to distribute the risk?

Don't they already do that?

No. You are rated based on general characteristics: age, gender,
certain risk factors (e.g., smoking). I'm sure the actuaries would
*love* to have more detail about your actual lifestyle... what you
eat, how often you exercise, the amount of sleep you get, the
stressors in your life, etc. With "big data", they could refine
their assessment of risk much better than they do currently.

Auto insurers now want to talk to your car to understand *how*
you drive -- not just your accident history, age, gender, etc.
They already look into your credit -- not to determine if you
can *pay* for the insurance (you prepay so they already KNOW
that you can pay before they issue the policy). Rather, they
want to see how diligent you are with other aspects of your
life that are reflected in your finances.

The same is true of health insurers -- if you can't keep your
finances in order, you probably aren't the type that is
diligent about personal health!

and smoking around any child should be proscuted as what it really is,
child
abuse

What about folks with "tempers"? Alcoholics? Addicts (of any sort)?
People who are psychologically "unfit"?

Tempers often get people in trouble and sent to mandatory anger
management counseling. The others are supposedly diseases people need
treatment for.

All of these things can exist *without* remedies. Surely they present
harmful influences on a child. What's the cost to a child of a parent who
works long hours? Or, who takes work home (competing with time that "should"
be spent with the child)?

It's relatively easy to come up with a list that just grows -- each
addition
"making sense" (to someone).

N.B. I am not taking a stand on any of these issues. Rather, pointing
out how easily this sort of thinking can get out of hand.

I have a buddy who believes healthcare should be "free". Of course, that
means we all pay for each other. Should I, then, be able to *prevent*
him from indulging in the habits that he has (smoking, poor sleeping
habits, diet, etc.) on the grounds that *I* am paying for *his*
healthcare?

Good question.

The rabbit hole is *very* deep! Once you head down it, you can quickly
lose sight of your goal!

On 9/16/2015 6:34 PM, Muggles wrote:

Smoking wreaks, literally.


wreak
[reek]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

verb (used with object)
1.
to inflict or execute (punishment, vengeance, etc.):
They wreaked havoc on the enemy.
2.
to carry out the promptings of (one's rage, ill humor, will, desire,
etc.), as on a victim or object:
He wreaked his anger on the office staff.

On 9/16/2015 2:16 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/15/2015 9:39 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Don Y wrote:
On 9/15/2015 3:38 PM, bob haller wrote:

Watching someone smoke themselves to death is, to me, a big shrug.

As stupid as smoking seems to me, I agree. Obviously there are
benefits
to smoking - it calms, energizes, suppresses appetite. Maybe
more. And
who is anyone to say a informed adult cannot make the choice to add
some
enjoyment to his good years at the expense of reducing the number
of his
bad years?

Helps the finances of the Social Security and Medicare programs, too.

the costs to try and save smokers lives is astronmical///////

anyone who smokes shouldnt be covered by health insurance for smoking
releated illnesses.....

What about folks who drink? Are overweight? Don't exercise? Don't
eat right? Don't get the proper amount of sleep? Use recreational
drugs? Consume too much caffeine? Work long hours? etc. Each of
these have associated costs. Where do you draw the line?

require the tobacco companies to pay for their ill health..

In *theory*, the individual pays the cost for their "bad habits"
(along with genetic issues). In *reality*, we subsidize bad behaviors
(just like we subsidize bad policies).

Should insurers rate folks *individually*? I.e., assess *your*
particular
"expected costs" and set the premium based on that? Stop grouping
folks into broad classes to distribute the risk?

and smoking around any child should be proscuted as what it really is,
child
abuse

What about folks with "tempers"? Alcoholics? Addicts (of any sort)?
People who are psychologically "unfit"?

It's relatively easy to come up with a list that just grows -- each
addition
"making sense" (to someone).

N.B. I am not taking a stand on any of these issues. Rather, pointing
out how easily this sort of thinking can get out of hand.

I have a buddy who believes healthcare should be "free". Of course,
that
means we all pay for each other. Should I, then, be able to *prevent*
him from indulging in the habits that he has (smoking, poor sleeping
habits, diet, etc.) on the grounds that *I* am paying for *his*
healthcare?

I always wonder why healthcare should be provided to people who don't
care of
themselves. Our system should pay more attention to preventive
medicine than treatment oriented medicine.

One of the goals of the ACA was to incentivize providers to shift resources
to preventative measures: free physicals, free health maintenance tests,
free flu shots, etc.

It should start from training medical student.

I think the problem lies with the *consumer* more than the supplier.
People expect to be able to "get fixed" without being "inconvenienced"
(by lifestyle changes, etc.). The consumers end up "training" the
providers to adopt *their* preferences.

SWMBO had a cholesterol problem some years back. MD was ready to
Rx a statin to bring it under control. Instead, she opted to
tackle it with diet and exercise. THAT NIGHT we changed her diet.
Four weeks later, the doctor was *flabbergasted* at the change in
her blood chemistry! No meds, no side-effects from those meds, etc.
And, a healthier lifestyle as an inherent part of the bargain.

How many folks will discipline themselves thusly? Esp if the
other option is "take one of these each day"?

How many times does an MD need to see patients NOT doing the right
things -- and, having to resort to drugs -- before he stops even
*offering* that suggestion as a remedy?

Also note, N. American doctors prescribe more drugs than any other in
the world.

I suspect you'll find that Americans *want* "pills" over other, less
expensive (but more *committed*) treatments. E.g., you don't need a pill
to lose weight -- you just have to *burn* more calories than you
*consume*! Ah, but that means you can't have second helpings of that
meal that tastes *so* good (because it has lots of sugar and fat!).

You can bring modest hyperlipidemia under control with diet and
exercise -- instead of resorting to drugs.

You can control much type 2 diabetes (esp "pre-diabetes") with exercise,
weight loss and diet -- instead of resorting to drugs.

I just had a check up this morning and my Dr. told me that while my A1C
was great that my bs was slightly elevated and that I was definitely
diabetic (type 2) and he wanted me to take the metformin even though my
bs is doing good just by diet and exercise. I was told years ago that I
didn't have a choice about becoming a diabetic because of family history
of type 1 diabetes. They said eventually that my pancreas would stop
functioning properly because of that family history. I'm just on the
this side |-- of being a diabetic. Prior to that I was hypoglycemic
for probably 20 years. I used to have low blood sugar episodes where
I'd be just short of blacking out, but now that I've crossed over to the
diabetic side that rarely ever happens.

My grandmother was insulin dependent and her bs would get between
300-400 at times.

Not sure why Dr.s want people to take meds when they can control the
type 2 with diet and exercise.

You can bring moderate hypertension under control with diet, exercise
and stress reduction techniques -- instead of resorting to drugs.

But, no one wants to "do the heavy lifting" to bring about these
changes. "Can't you just GIVE ME A PILL?"

The other problem with many of these maladies is that their *real*
consequences (heart attack, stroke, blindness, etc.) happen down
the road. In essence, you're dealing with a control system that
has enormous *lag* -- the patient's "control actions" (or lack
thereof!) don't manifest in the "output" for DECADES!!

[People have a tough time losing weight because weight control is
also a system with lots of lag; yet that lag is on the order of
days or weeks (before you see results from your changed diet),
not *years*!]



--
Maggie