"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:
Went to the site and it looked real good until I saw that they only do
plastic lenses. Leaves me out.

I'm curious--why does it leave you out?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:
Went to the site and it looked real good until I saw that they only do
plastic lenses. Leaves me out.

I'm curious--why does it leave you out?


Because if it isn't glass, they are near useless to me. Last pair of plastic
lenses I had lasted about 6 hours.

diggerop wrote:

When Australia first nationalised medical care in 1975, I was
vehemently opposed to it. Saw it as government interference, creeping
socialism and denying freedom of choice. I held that view for many
years. Gradually, as I saw it get through some teething troubles and
changes, some of which were caused by changes of government it
evolved into a workable system. Both sides of national politics now
support it and have done for about the last 14 years.
[snip]

Interesting post. Much of the world seems to have been able to make
"socialized"¹ medicine work with varying degrees of success, one measure of
that being that the citizens of many nations live longer than Americans
while their governments spend less per capita on health care. But in
America a powerful lobby protects the profits of the health care industry,
that's why Americans pay more and often get less--the administrative
overhead of health insurance companies consumes 20% of what Americans pay
for insurance. I don't know what portion of the current reform legislation
will survive to become law, I suspect just reigning in the worst abuses of
the insurance companies might be all we get. So long as members of Congress
are taking millions in campaign donations from the health care industry I'm
dubious as to how much real reform we'll see.

¹"Socialized" in this context means anything that puts people's health ahead
of the profits of health care corporations.

CW wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:
Went to the site and it looked real good until I saw that they only
do plastic lenses. Leaves me out.

I'm curious--why does it leave you out?


Because if it isn't glass, they are near useless to me. Last pair of
plastic lenses I had lasted about 6 hours.

I stuck with glass lenses until quite recently, but I've used plastic lenses
the past few years and they've been fine. I clean the lenses only under
running water and so far scratches haven't been a problem. I certainly like
how much lighter glasses with plastic lenses are.

J. Clarke wrote:

The founders carefully considered what the government should pay for
and listed it in the Constitution. There is nothing there about the
government paying for medical treatment.

There are a lot of things we take for granted that aren't mentioned in the
Constitution, yet it might be awkward to do away with all of them.

And schools, police, and
fire departments are not funded by the national government, nor are
parks.

Say what?

I don't know what a "community power consortium" is but there
is certainly no Federally funded power grid.

Considering that the power companies have displayed indifference to
protecting their systems from computer hackers (especially those paid by
foreign powers) I for one won't be surprised to see the federal govt. take a
more active interest in that industry.

diggerop wrote:

Admitting that that in spite of my political leanings, something that
I was vehemently opposed to and was sure would be an unworkable
disaster actually worked reasonably well (and could work better, I
have no doubt,) doesn't make me a socialist. Just smart enough to
admit I'm not always right.

Well said. Unfortunately a great many Americans (on the left and the right)
take an entrenched tribal view of things, and either you stick to their
party line all the way, or you're a heretic.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:12:49 +0800, diggerop wrote:

When Australia first nationalised medical care in 1975, I was vehemently
opposed to it. Saw it as government interference, creeping socialism and
denying freedom of choice. I held that view for many years. Gradually,
as I saw it get through some teething troubles and changes, some of
which were caused by changes of government it evolved into a workable
system. Both sides of national politics now support it and have done for
about the

Thanks. It's nice to hear from someone who lived through the conversion
to government health care and changed opinions as a result of facts.
That doesn't happen very often :-).

Now run and hide - the rampant right is coming after you!


As opposed to the drooling left that is "right behind you" -
with both hands on your shoulders...

HeyBub wrote:

Australian-rules football is plenty tough (I think knives are limited
to 6" or less). But have you ever heard of an MRI machine at an
Australian stadium? Several of our pansy-football stadiums have a
machine readily available.

That America can afford to waste more money on health care than other
nations doesn't alter the fact that a great deal of that expenditure is
indeed wasted. That pro sports teams can afford MRI machines while many
millions of Americans can't get basic health care is also not something to
be proud of.

diggerop wrote:

Six inches? ......... That's not a knife! : )

diggerop

Heh, a great scene.

Larry Jaques wrote:

The House of Representatives passed Health Care Reform tonight.

Hello Senate.

I wonder if the Senators know just how angry the majority of the
populace is over this insignificant little item. g

Hmm, I wonder if the local surplus shops have flak jackets...
It may get ugly in a hurry.

I wonder if the angry minority knows it is indeed a minority? I also wonder
why so many of them are so quick to think of violence as being a legitimate
response to the reality that election results have consequences?

DGDevin said:

diggerop wrote:

Six inches? ......... That's not a knife! : )

diggerop

Heh, a great scene.

Wasn't it!
Pretty good movie back in the day.


Greg G.

On Nov 9, 3:31*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
CW wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:
Went to the site and it looked real good until I saw that they only
do plastic lenses. Leaves me out.

I'm curious--why does it leave you out?

Because if it isn't glass, they are near useless to me. Last pair of
plastic lenses I had lasted about 6 hours.

I stuck with glass lenses until quite recently, but I've used plastic lenses
the past few years and they've been fine. *I clean the lenses only under
running water and so far scratches haven't been a problem. *I certainly like
how much lighter glasses with plastic lenses are.

The DOs I've gone to have done everything but refuse to prescribe
glass lenses for me. I raised objections to plastic because I don't
treat glasses well, but was told not think about glass lenses as
safety glasses. They've both told me that I'd be far better off with
the scratch resistant coatings. The manufacturers will replace them
if scratched (SWMBO has had hers replaced in the last couple of months
- dropped them on the driveway). The pair I use for working around
the house is two years old and is now pretty badly scratched. My
every day set is OK after a year. I plan on replacing the lenses in
my "work" set the next time I go in. I like the frames better anyway.

My first DO told me the best cleaning solution was water and dish
detergent - the dollar store variety. Hand soaps and some ritzy dish
detergents have skin conditioners in them that will smear on the
lenses.

I looked at the site posted earlier but didn't see anything like what
I have. My lenses are pretty large (58mmx48mm) to accommodate large
computer displays (CAD) without turning my head. I use bifocals set
for medium distance on top (18" or so) and reading (~12") on the
bottom. I don't need glasses for distance but do work on a computer
~12 hours a day.

DGDevin said:

diggerop wrote:

Admitting that that in spite of my political leanings, something that
I was vehemently opposed to and was sure would be an unworkable
disaster actually worked reasonably well (and could work better, I
have no doubt,) doesn't make me a socialist. Just smart enough to
admit I'm not always right.

Well said. Unfortunately a great many Americans (on the left and the right)
take an entrenched tribal view of things, and either you stick to their
party line all the way, or you're a heretic.

I've noticed that. Perhaps it's something to do with that Us vs. Them
mentality that becomes entrenched from exposure to high school
football competition. One reason I've always liked the physical
sciences - irrefutable, reproducible, fact based truths. Mostly...


Greg G.

DGDevin said:

Larry Jaques wrote:

The House of Representatives passed Health Care Reform tonight.

Hello Senate.

I wonder if the Senators know just how angry the majority of the
populace is over this insignificant little item. g

Hmm, I wonder if the local surplus shops have flak jackets...
It may get ugly in a hurry.

I wonder if the angry minority knows it is indeed a minority? I also wonder
why so many of them are so quick to think of violence as being a legitimate
response to the reality that election results have consequences?

Indeed.

I have another interesting question: (to me, anyway)
If everyone who currently pays for health care insurance - directly or
indirectly - were assured that for the same money they could cover
everyone in the country with the same or improved levels of health
care, would they still be opposed to a Canadian/Aussie type health
care system? Or is that simply too much socialism for their psyches
to absorb?


Greg G.

Rick Samuel wrote:
SNIP

Question: Is your goverment able to stand on it's own feet, or is it
special intersts groups who do the talking, as in the US?


I read this to mean - or that you are implying at least - that our
government is controlled not directly by the people, but by special
interest groups. Care to guess what the single biggest and most
influencial lobbying organization in Washington D.C. is?

Hint - It is NOT:

- The Financial Industry
- The Insurance Industry
- The Energy Industry
- The Manufacturing Industry
- The Medical Industry
- The Legal Industry
- The Military/Aerospace Industry

IOW - it is none of the usual suspects that everyone gets all exercised
about. It is not the big eeeeeeeeeevil corporations or foreign governments,
or any of the boogeymen you hear blamed for all our ills.

In fact, the largest and most influential lobby in the US is ...
the envelope please:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_the...ng_group_in_US

They don't necessarily spend the most amount of money, but the sheer
size of the AARP makes them the most influencial lobby in D.C. What they
don't spend in money, they sell in votes. It's also why you'll never
see real healthcare reform. In the words of a sign seen recently
at an anti-reform rally: "Don't replace Medicare with Socialism."
(Apparently without any sense of the irony / stupidity / irrationality
of said statement.)

So, don't blame the capitalists, the bankers, the lawyers, the influence
peddlers, the agents of foreign governments, or the evil geniuses in
the military-industrial complex. Blame grandma ...

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:31:20 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

Because if it isn't glass, they are near useless to me. Last pair of
plastic lenses I had lasted about 6 hours.

I stuck with glass lenses until quite recently, but I've used plastic lenses
the past few years and they've been fine. I clean the lenses only under
running water and so far scratches haven't been a problem. I certainly like
how much lighter glasses with plastic lenses are.

I had the same problem too, insisting on glass lenses every time until
about two years back. The glass ones eventually started taking several
weeks to be ordered in ~ that's if they were available at all. Then a
plastic lens set I bought and usually cleaned with my shirtsleeve got
permanently scratched within 6 months of use.

Now when I buy plastic lensed glasses, the first option I insist on is
that they be the most scratch resistant possible. That usually means
there's an extra option box to be checked, but at least they don't
scratch when using my sleeve to clean and make it look like I'm
looking at a foggy day out.

The added bonus is that they're extremely light and not subject to
breaking or chipping when the get accidentally dropped to the floor.

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:52:41 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

As opposed to the drooling left that is "right behind you" -
with both hands on your shoulders...

Let's hope those hands on your shoulder have enough sense to push you
in front a bus. Reading your whining and complaining ad nauseam is
enough to make everyone else jump in front of bus and I sure as hell
don't want to be the only one left while you're around.

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:38:09 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

I saw this movie somewhere before, or at least read about it a history
book. It involved starvation, suffering, misery, death, genocide,
and wholesale slaughter. It's good to know that these things always
remain in fashion among the self-anointed saviors of mankind and their
stooges ...

As usual, the mindless blathering of someone who is *only* concerned
is what benefits him.

Go whine somewhere else.

"J. Clarke" wrote:

Try Wal-Mart for the exam.

They don't pass muster.

Have used the services of an opthamologist for many years and Wal-Mart
doesn't have any on staff.

At this point in my life don't plan on changing.

You were robbed. Give http://www.zennioptical.com a try. If they
don't
work for you you haven't spent much, if they do you end up with a
spare
pair. No trifocals though, bifocal or progressive. If you don't
have
prescription sunglasses it might be an excuse to pick up a pair.

Maybe so, but I fit the 20%, not the 80% of the market.

Have a very difficult face to fit and also require a large lens to
look right on my face.

As a result, wear RayBan type aviator frame which requires an oversize
blank.

Have worn a photo gray lens for year which negates the requirement for
sun glasses, but does require glass lens and Corning is the only game
in town.

Require frequent adjustment of frame, thus local support is required.

For those who fit the 80% market share, on line may be a good deal.

For those of us in the 20% market share, not so much.

Lew

CW wrote:

Because if it isn't glass, they are near useless to me. Last pair of
plastic lenses I had lasted about 6 hours.

You mean you get 6 hours?

You're better than me.

Lew

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:42:08 -0800, DGDevin wrote:

And schools, police, and
fire departments are not funded by the national government, nor are
parks.

Say what?

I caught that one too, but figured if he didn't know the percentage of
local budgets that come from federal grants, it was a waste of time
trying to educate him.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

There are a lot of things we take for granted that aren't mentioned
in the Constitution, yet it might be awkward to do away with all of
them.

But it would be healthy to do so. And you're right - the sheeple have
been dulled and have themselves requested a form of government that
they "take for granted" so long as their own various oxen are not
gored. Then one day, when the economy is on the skids, unemployment
has skyrocketed, and the various government bodies broke, the sheeple
finally wake up in complete alarm only to demand more gasoline on
their foolish fi More government.

A reliable recognition sign for a certain sort of Usenet character is his
use of the word "sheeple." People who are convinced *they* are so much
better informed (and of course smarter) than pretty much everyone else are
usually neither.

Some of the folks who wrote the Constitution anticipated and even
recommended its occasional overhaul--why it's almost as if they knew that
circumstances they could not have foreseen would arise. And yet there are
those today who apparently would have been happier in the late 18th century,
if only there were a way to send them back.

And schools, police, and
fire departments are not funded by the national government, nor are
parks.

Say what?

Fire, police, etc. are ordinarily funded at the state/local/city
level.

Tell your local govt. you don't want them taking any more federal money for
things like education or law enforcement and see what their reaction is.

Considering that the power companies have displayed indifference to
protecting their systems from computer hackers (especially those
paid by foreign powers) I for one won't be surprised to see the
federal govt. take a more active interest in that industry.

That's hilarious.

No, it isn't. Given the opportunity to harden their system against such
threats the power companies have done almost nothing, and they are painfully
vulnerable to cyber attacks.

Let's do a simple examination of some facts -

That would be a refreshing change of pace for you. Alas, the spew that
followed had little to do with what I posted, and as always it is seen
through the lens of your "libertarian" paranoia. I don't know why you even
pretend you're answering what other people post, you're so much happier just
waving your placard and yelling your chant, and you hardly need to involve
other people to do that.

Larry Blanchard wrote:


And schools, police, and
fire departments are not funded by the national government, nor are
parks.

Say what?

I caught that one too, but figured if he didn't know the percentage of
local budgets that come from federal grants, it was a waste of time
trying to educate him.

Some of the folks I know in law enforcement would spit out their teeth at
the thought of no more federal money, they'd be sunk without it.

wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:52:41 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

As opposed to the drooling left that is "right behind you" -
with both hands on your shoulders...

Let's hope those hands on your shoulder have enough sense to push you
in front a bus. Reading your whining and complaining ad nauseam is
enough to make

everyone else ----------------------

jump in front of bus and I sure as hell
don't want to be the only one left while you're around.

Really think you need to speak for yourself. Your GENERALIZATIONS are
becoming a bit much! But nice try....
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

Lew Hodgett wrote:
CW wrote:

Because if it isn't glass, they are near useless to me. Last pair of
plastic lenses I had lasted about 6 hours.

You mean you get 6 hours?

You're better than me.

Geez, what do you folks do to the poor things? My polycarbonate Wileys have
lasted me three years now on a motorcycle.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:38:05 +0800, the infamous "diggerop"
toobusy@themoment scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
none of my business." I like it.

So, what state do you live in down there, other than "of denial"? You
a sandgroper, a Taswegian, a banana bender, or what?

--A fellow curmudgeon

Sandgroper. Born and bred. ...... and proud of it : )

A proud Sandgroper, eh? Will wonders never cease. gd&r


Ten foot tall and bulletproof, too : )


Say "Hullo" to Phully Laird for me if you get through Nannup. Damn,
it's been 7 years now...I wonder if he'll remember me...if the grog
ain't got him yet. He slid down from Perth a while back.

Well, he looks to be alive, anywho. Egad, tell him he needs a new web
guy. 256 color gifs, EEK! http://www.nannupfurnituregallery.com.au/



Nannup, - that would make a nice leisurely weekend bike run. Haven't been
down that way for many years. ....... got me thinking, summertime, not too
hot yet ....... hmmm.
I'll be sure to let you know if I make the run.

diggerop

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:33:13 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


Comrade Marx called - he wants his ideology back.

If you think by emailing me privately, you're going to get me to stop
commenting about your crap, then you must be dumber than pig spit.

Do it again and you can expect a **** storm to come your way.

"DGDevin" wrote:

Considering that the power companies have displayed indifference to
protecting their systems from computer hackers (especially those
paid by foreign powers) I for one won't be surprised to see the
federal govt. take a more active interest in that industry.

Catch 60 Minutes last night?

The utility problem is known and under scrutiny by Congress at this
time.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:

Because if it isn't glass, they are near useless to me. Last pair of
plastic lenses I had lasted about 6 hours.

You mean you get 6 hours?

You're better than me.

Lew

I knew that someone on here must have the same problem.

wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:25:40 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Australian-rules football is plenty tough (I think knives are
limited to 6" or less). But have you ever heard of an MRI machine at
an Australian stadium? Several of our pansy-football stadiums have a
machine readily available.

Not sure what your point is about the MRI machine, but again, it could
only be because they can afford it. If it's for saving life, then more
people would be saved by donating that MRI machine to some local
medical clinic.

It's not for saving a life - it's for diagnosing an injury (that may be life
saving). I suspect that MRI machines at football stadiums are virtually
never used (maybe once a year?). The people who own the MRI machine don't
WANT to donate it to the community health center. They use it (possibly) to
protect their players which makes more money for the owners which allows
them to donate to worthy causes far in excess of one MRI machine. The poor
can't even take care of themselves, let alone contribute to the well-being
of others.

Naturally the question then becomes, who has the
greatest right to life ~ the football player or the pregnant mother
who has recently experienced a car accident.

Arguing from a false premise. Every mandated right implies a duty on the
part of someone else. If the pregnant mother had a "right" of any kind, a
duty is simultaneously imposed on others. Inasmuch as we reject the imposed
duty, if follows she has no "right" to life - or anything else - at our
expense.

Yes, there's certainly
more money involved with the football player, but there' also more
humanity involved with the pregnant mother. Unfortunately, "humanity"
doesn't count for much, at least not as much as hoped.

This hash was settled in the late 18th Century with the publication of the
"Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. In it he postulated "The Invisble Hand"
which, simply, means that when everyone acts to improve their own personal
condition, the overall condition of society, humanity, improves.

Some people just need to keep up.

"CW" wrote in message

Because if it isn't glass, they are near useless to me. Last pair of
plastic lenses I had lasted about 6 hours.


I guess it depends on how you use them. I've been wearing plastic for years
and the light weight makes quite a difference with my prescription. I get
the high index too.

The problem with Two Pairs is the distance. About a 150 mile drive each way
so that add quite a bit to the cost. Two trips needed. My requirements don't
fit the "in about an hour" deal some places have.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
As a result, wear RayBan type aviator frame which requires an oversize
blank.

Have worn a photo gray lens for year which negates the requirement for sun
glasses, but does require glass lens and Corning is the only game in
town.


Is the glass because of the oversize requirement? Photo gray plastic is
readily available. I've been wearing Transitions for many years and like
the freedom from swapping to sunglasses.

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:10:53 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

This hash was settled in the late 18th Century with the publication of the
"Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. In it he postulated "The Invisble Hand"
which, simply, means that when everyone acts to improve their own personal
condition, the overall condition of society, humanity, improves.

Lots of "hash" is and has been postulated through the ages. Doesn't
mean it counts for much. And that "invisible hand) works at glacial
speed at best which takes generations to have any noticeable effect.
What if the MRI money was instead invested in education for that
pregnant mother. Within half a generation a really noticeable effect
is seen. She brings up a family, ensures decent education to all her
children who are grown and have families of their own who will likely
succeed tremendously. And, how many families could benefit from
education money derived from the sale of that one MRI machine.
Hundreds!

However you want to mandate it, MRI machines are just a way companies
ensure some of their profit making practices bear fruit. Nothing else
and certainly not as a means so athletes stay healthy enough to
volunteer and change the landscape of charity. They're strictly there
to protect athletes and have extremely little trickle down effect to
volunteering.

You've been smoking something too much.

wrote:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:10:53 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

This hash was settled in the late 18th Century with the publication of the
"Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. In it he postulated "The Invisble Hand"
which, simply, means that when everyone acts to improve their own personal
condition, the overall condition of society, humanity, improves.

Lots of "hash" is and has been postulated through the ages. Doesn't
mean it counts for much. And that "invisible hand) works at glacial
speed at best which takes generations to have any noticeable effect.
What if the MRI money was instead invested in education for that
pregnant mother. Within half a generation a really noticeable effect
is seen. She brings up a family, ensures decent education to all her
children who are grown and have families of their own who will likely
succeed tremendously. And, how many families could benefit from
education money derived from the sale of that one MRI machine.
Hundreds!

However you want to mandate it, MRI machines are just a way companies
ensure some of their profit making practices bear fruit. Nothing else
and certainly not as a means so athletes stay healthy enough to
volunteer and change the landscape of charity. They're strictly there
to protect athletes and have extremely little trickle down effect to
volunteering.

You've been smoking something too much.


You sound as if you think a football team owning a MRI machine is
somehow taking away education for hundreds of pregnant mothers and
dooming them to dismal futures. Life isn't a zero sum game.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

Is the glass because of the oversize requirement?

Actually it is my requirement.

For me, plastic is about as useless as tits on a boar hog.

I can't be bothered with a separate pair of glasses for sunglasses,
thus the photo gray.

Lew

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:40:01 -0700, Doug Winterburn
You sound as if you think a football team owning a MRI machine is
somehow taking away education for hundreds of pregnant mothers and
dooming them to dismal futures. Life isn't a zero sum game.

Of course not. I was responding to heybub suggesting MRI's are good
things for Athletes so they're kept healthy and then charities will
benefit from them being able to volunteer. As far as I'm concerned,
they're strictly for asset protection of the for businesses who own
the athlete's contracts.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
CW wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:
Went to the site and it looked real good until I saw that they only
do plastic lenses. Leaves me out.

I'm curious--why does it leave you out?


Because if it isn't glass, they are near useless to me. Last pair of
plastic lenses I had lasted about 6 hours.

I stuck with glass lenses until quite recently, but I've used plastic
lenses the past few years and they've been fine. I clean the lenses only
under running water and so far scratches haven't been a problem. I
certainly like how much lighter glasses with plastic lenses are.

Then I leave it to you to explain to my boss that I have to go wash my
glasses every five to ten minutes.

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:11:34 -0800, "CW"
wrote:
Then I leave it to you to explain to my boss that I have to go wash my
glasses every five to ten minutes.

Spritzer bottle of water and micro fibre rag in top right hand drawer?

Admit it. You're sneaking off to meet that hot new secretary that just
got hired. And of course that would explain why you're glasses are
always steamed up and need cleaning.

DGDevin wrote:

diggerop wrote:

Admitting that that in spite of my political leanings, something that
I was vehemently opposed to and was sure would be an unworkable
disaster actually worked reasonably well (and could work better, I
have no doubt,) doesn't make me a socialist. Just smart enough to
admit I'm not always right.

Well said. Unfortunately a great many Americans (on the left and the
right) take an entrenched tribal view of things, and either you stick to
their party line all the way, or you're a heretic.

The problem with this whole thing is that it fundamentally changes the
relationship of citizens to the government; your comments regarding the
Howard government sort of reinforce that. What this kind of program does
is change us from citizens to subjects, making us dependent upon the
government for a very basic need. Future debates then no longer revolve
around freedom, they revolve around the cost of the health system, what
special interest groups get funded, what rationing is applied to what
unfortunate group of citizens. [Yeah, I know, the statists will cry that
the health insurance companies do that now. The fact is however, that if
one doesn't like what a health insurance company determines, there are
alternatives. At worst, one can leverage one's personal assets and get a
loan for the needed treatment. When government says, "no", the answer
based on the 2000+ page Pelosi/Obama-care bill is "NO".]

This whole fiasco has nothing to do with health care and everything to do
with increasing power and control of the government. This, coupled with
the global warming legislation places the government in control of every
aspect of our lives. Are people really so willing to surrender to this in
the name of having other people pay for their health insurance?


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

¹"Socialized" in this context means anything that puts people's
health ahead of the profits of health care corporations.

And if profit is minimized or dismissed, where shall the resources for
research and delivery come from? What will attract the brightest minds
to bleeding-edge medical research? Who's going to bother capitalizing
the estimated $1B it takes to get a new wonder drug to market? Shall
we all just become slaves to the state and let the political oligarchs
run everything?

Did I say we need to eliminate or even minimize profits? No? Then why did
you react as if I did? I believe in free enterprise, and profit is a
powerful motivation for the benefit of the public *provided there is a savvy
cop on the beat*. Unfortunately putting profit ahead of all else can also
lead insurance companies to deny treatment to people who need it. Or it can
lead doctors to set up imaging clinics which bill insurance companies for
needless x-rays or MRIs etc., and we all pay for that. Drug companies--well
anyone paying attention has seen them conceal studies showing dangerous side
effects of their products and so on, all in the name of profit. No, I'm not
saying we should make medicine unprofitable, I'm saying we need to guard
against the mindset in which executive bonuses and stock options and
quarterly earnings are *all* that matters.

Oh, and one other thing. If the US succumbs to the phony pleasures of
socialized medicine, what's the rest of the world going to do? With
our government in control of all things medical, capping prices, and
limiting delivery to those sufficiently worthy (as determined by the
health czar), the implicit subsidies to medical technology and drugs
will disappear. The rest of the planet isn't going to get drugs and
technology at a discount because the "rich Americans" will not longer
be paying the premium for them. Notwithstanding my contempt for
collectivism in all its forms, it would be sweet to watch the infernal
finger waggers around the world have to actually pay the real price
for their leading edge medicine for a change....

As always it's only a matter of time until you jump off the rhetorical cliff
with your hair on fire and a scream on your lips--are all libertarians such
drama queens? So you're a believer in the fictional death panels huh?
Figures. Oh, BTW, whoever told you medical advances happen only in America
was pulling your leg. The next time you have an MRI reflect on how much of
the development of that technology occurred outside America, or if you ever
need a hip replacement thank the British orthopedic surgeon who pioneered
that surgery, and so on and so forth. Damn, not everything is invented in
or paid for by America, who knew?