Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the
election
but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.

Since when has bungling the economy, financial regulation, and war anything
to do with skin color? You are against black people becoming involved in
politics, or am I misunderstanding?

For the record: not only the last previous administration is guilty on
many fronts (although the worst happened during their term(s)), quite a
number before were guilty too. And personal and corporate responsibility
should include an enforcement mechanism.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Doug Winterburn wrote in news:CRrpn.119060
:

He's saying if they're in the 40% of folks who don't pay income taxes, a
tax credit is worth zilch - so still not able to afford health insurance
- unless it's done like the current "earned income" tax credit where you
get a income tax refund even if you paid no income tax.

But of course that is the way it should be done, and I am pretty sure it is
something like that in the proposed bill.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Mark & Juanita wrote:

You kind of missed the part that states that for a bill to become law, it
must be passed, "in identical form" by both houses of the legislature. That
would *not* be the case with the Demon Pass approach. i.e., the rule would
state that by passing the reconciliation measure, the nationalization of
health care would be "deemed" to have passed without the House actually
voting on it.

OK, I get it. That one is a little too subtle for me. It probably depends on
the exact wording of the rule and resolution, which I haven't read and probably
wouldn't be able to interpret.

The whole approach was to give cover to those voting for it
to say they had not voted for the bill, but for the reconciliation measure.
My fervent hope is that most American voters are smart enough to see through
that BS, but then given the results of the previous two elections, that may
be optimistic.

Yeah. It all seemed kind of silly to me. Any opponent in the fall is going to
say "They voted for/against health care" regardless of the technique used.

Anyway, it appears that the House has dropped that silliness. Within a few
hours they are going to vote a straight up/down on the Senate bill, then the
amendments.

To be perfectly honest with yourself, what would you have thought if the
Bush administration and Republican congress had tried the same approach to
privatizing Social Security?

It's silly no matter who is doing it.

-- Doug

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:26:04 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:

On Mar 21, 12:52*am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
[snipped the usual]

. *You are free to feel that way, but if
you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there, don't
try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.

How about a country with a Patriot Act?

....who doesn't press for the removal of some 20 million KNOWN illegal
aliens or for the protection of our borders. Uckingfay Insaneyay.
The act isnt about security, it's about POWER, plain and simple.

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

Doug Winterburn wrote:

He's saying if they're in the 40% of folks who don't pay income taxes, a
tax credit is worth zilch - so still not able to afford health insurance
- unless it's done like the current "earned income" tax credit where you
get a income tax refund even if you paid no income tax.

Some tax credits are refundable. That means they will send you a check for the
credit even if you don't pay any income taxes. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_credit

-- Doug

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:52:09 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:


... granting for the moment, the 30 Million people uninsured number
(it's
not correct as it includes illegals and those who, by choice, are
uninsured),

Wrong! See:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/sev...t-health-care/


how on earth does finding insurance for less than 10% of the
US population justify nationalizing 1/6 of the economy,

Nationalizing? Last time I looked, the "public option" was dead.

destroying a
system with which most people are satisfied,

Oh, yeah? The polls show 40 some percent for, 40 some percent against
the total bill. When the individual parts are polled, support is well in
the majority.


and setting us on a road to
inferior, rationed, health care as the program spending spirals out of
control?

Rationed? See the above reference. Spiraling spending? According to
the non-partisan CBO, the bill will save money.

Why does it take a 3000 page bill to insure 30 million people?
This bill is not about health care, it is about complete, absolute
control over peoples' lives.

Watch out for those black helicopters!

And speaking of that "public option", the US is the *only* industrialized
country where people can go broke paying medical bills. Every other such
country provides some sort of health care guarantees, whether private,
public, or a mix. But you, and folks like you, keep repeating "Everyone
is out of step but me."

If you'd care to see how those countries, and even some of the
"developing" countries handle health care, look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

But I doubt you care, you'd rather just keep on blathering falsehoods and
exaggerations.

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

On Mar 21, 11:32*am, Han wrote:
Robatoy wrote :

On Mar 21, 12:52*am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
[snipped the usual]

. *You are free to feel that way, but if
you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there,
don't try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.

How about a country with a Patriot Act?

I feel fine living in this country with a sort of democratic representative *
republic. *(See other posts of mine referencing Radburn). *What I object to
is the rabid reelection fever and crazed Pavlovian reactions to lobbyists..

And that all has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, Robatoy. *I despise
some of the provisions there. *Remember, in Holland you now have to carry
ID all the time since the EU reguulation of that aspect became effective,
and in the US you better have ID with you too. *What about Kanuckistan,
Robatoy?


I raised the Patriot Act as an obvious example of a republican double
standard when they describe health reform as a loss of freedom. From
where I am sitting, either party is nothing but a collective of power
hungry scumbags driven by the lobbyists/special interest groups. And
no matter who the president is, he's influenced by way too many
rasputins like Dick Cheney or Rahm Emanuel. That Emanuel is one shady
sunnuvabitch.

As far as ID being obligatory up here in the tundra? Just when you're
operating a motor vehicle.

And when it comes to The Netherlands, I wouldn't live there for 20
million Euros or on a bet. Those people are crazeeeee. G

But, really... when has it been any different in history? A few with
power control the freedoms of the serfs JUST enough to let them gather/
earn so that they can be taxed/plundered. Same-ol'-same-old. And when
the powers at the helm want to get bolder in their quest for rape/
pillage/taxes, they also know they need to be careful that there
aren't too many guns around as the serfs DO get ****ed off.
And what was the reaction of the Kanuckistanis when the government
announced a gun registry/control program? Well, the sheeple went along
just fine... but many said: "fuuuck, I better get meself a heater or
two and hide them." A few other saw yet another opportunity to take
advantage of a porous border with the US and started smuggling guns
and selling them. End result? More murders than before gun control.
(Yes, I know, other factors play into this as well.)

On 21 Mar 2010 15:28:02 GMT, the infamous Han
scrawled the following:

Mark & Juanita wrote in
om:

Han wrote:
There ought to be a better way than democracy ...


We don't have a democracy, we have a representative republic.
However,
that statement above is still truly frightening. i.e., you are
willing to surrender your personal freedoms to someone who claims to
know better than you what is in your best interests. You are free to
feel that way, but if you do, go find a country that is governed that
way and live there, don't try to force that enslavement on the rest of
us.

I don't think you will ever get it, Mark & Juanita. You are now paying
for their healthcare at emergency room rates. Get them a living wage
job, and have them pay for their own health care.

What is your definition of a living wage, Han? Does it differ by
local, or does one wage fit all, for singles, couples, and couples
with ten children? Should I pay triple wages for a family man when the
single guy is probably in better shape and can do more work for my
pay?

The vast majority of people I have seen in emergency rooms around the
West since 1966 have been non-English speaking Hispanics. What you are
suggesting is illegal (hiring people who aren't supposed to be in the
country in the first place) and naive (thinking that they would
purchase insurance even if they could.) The same goes for the poor,
who also go to the emergency wards


Your idea that this bill is forcing people to do anything is absurd.
They'll get the choice of insurance and even no insurance. But since
someone needs to pay for emergency care, even if they don't, fine them if
they don't get some coverage. That is choice.

That's choice, eh? I can either get insurance (which I don't want and
can't afford) or pay a fine? Pay for coverage or pay for nothing?
You probably think that when the Mafia guys come to a store on your
street and ask for protection money that it's OK, too, don't you? Both
are examples of outright extortion to me. You state that they're not
forcing people to do anything, then saying that they'll be fined if
they don't get insurance. How can you reconcile those two statements
which are in direct conflict?


And yes, I do believe
that people should pay taxes, and this is indeed another tax of sorts. I
would like individual responsibility, but "they" should not have to pay
triply inflated proces just because they don't work for Harvard
University or GM.

How much insurance tax should someone who makes $10,000 per year pay?
Are your taxes thresholded or do the homeless pay, too?

Until the gov't does away with the extravagant fees we pay for
supporting the tens of millions of illegal aliens who are in the
country, the bills we see will be far too high. It's only one of many
reasons that this healthcare bill is neither functionally nor
economically sound.

If the bill is passed today, the _only_ people who will directly
benefit from anything about it will be the attorneys involved on
either side of the courtroom. And the billions wasted could have gone
toward a real healthcare solution. It's truly sad and disgusting.

What we need are extreme measures, COMPLETELY OVERHAULING the
following: the medical system, the pharmaceutical system, the legal
system, the legislative branch of the gov't, and the Border Patrol.
Allowing the latter to actually do their jobs would be a great help to
most of the above systems immediately, but that's just a start.

(And if the above gives you any idea that I'm a racist, feel free to
discard that notion. I'll happily continue to date interracially.)


--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

Larry Jaques wrote:
On 21 Mar 2010 15:28:02 GMT, the infamous Han
scrawled the following:

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

Han wrote:
There ought to be a better way than democracy ...

We don't have a democracy, we have a representative republic.
However,
that statement above is still truly frightening. i.e., you are
willing to surrender your personal freedoms to someone who claims to
know better than you what is in your best interests. You are free to
feel that way, but if you do, go find a country that is governed that
way and live there, don't try to force that enslavement on the rest of
us.
I don't think you will ever get it, Mark & Juanita. You are now paying
for their healthcare at emergency room rates. Get them a living wage
job, and have them pay for their own health care.

What is your definition of a living wage, Han? Does it differ by
local, or does one wage fit all, for singles, couples, and couples
with ten children? Should I pay triple wages for a family man when the
single guy is probably in better shape and can do more work for my
pay?

The vast majority of people I have seen in emergency rooms around the
West since 1966 have been non-English speaking Hispanics. What you are
suggesting is illegal (hiring people who aren't supposed to be in the
country in the first place) and naive (thinking that they would
purchase insurance even if they could.) The same goes for the poor,
who also go to the emergency wards


Your idea that this bill is forcing people to do anything is absurd.
They'll get the choice of insurance and even no insurance. But since
someone needs to pay for emergency care, even if they don't, fine them if
they don't get some coverage. That is choice.

That's choice, eh? I can either get insurance (which I don't want and
can't afford) or pay a fine? Pay for coverage or pay for nothing?
You probably think that when the Mafia guys come to a store on your
street and ask for protection money that it's OK, too, don't you? Both
are examples of outright extortion to me. You state that they're not
forcing people to do anything, then saying that they'll be fined if
they don't get insurance. How can you reconcile those two statements
which are in direct conflict?


And yes, I do believe
that people should pay taxes, and this is indeed another tax of sorts. I
would like individual responsibility, but "they" should not have to pay
triply inflated proces just because they don't work for Harvard
University or GM.

How much insurance tax should someone who makes $10,000 per year pay?
Are your taxes thresholded or do the homeless pay, too?

Until the gov't does away with the extravagant fees we pay for
supporting the tens of millions of illegal aliens who are in the
country, the bills we see will be far too high. It's only one of many
reasons that this healthcare bill is neither functionally nor
economically sound.

If the bill is passed today, the _only_ people who will directly
benefit from anything about it will be the attorneys involved on
either side of the courtroom. And the billions wasted could have gone
toward a real healthcare solution. It's truly sad and disgusting.

Add to that that the ten years taxes for six years of payout means the
guvmint will have 4 years of income they can throw into the general fund
thereby reducing the deficit but adding to the national debt just as SS
does now. This will make things appear somewhat better for the 2012
elections, however the reality is even more debt for the chillun to pay off.


What we need are extreme measures, COMPLETELY OVERHAULING the
following: the medical system, the pharmaceutical system, the legal
system, the legislative branch of the gov't, and the Border Patrol.
Allowing the latter to actually do their jobs would be a great help to
most of the above systems immediately, but that's just a start.

(And if the above gives you any idea that I'm a racist, feel free to
discard that notion. I'll happily continue to date interracially.)


--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

On 3/21/2010 2:03 PM, Robatoy wrote:

earn so that they can be taxed/plundered. Same-ol'-same-old. And when
the powers at the helm want to get bolder in their quest for rape/
pillage/taxes, they also know they need to be careful that there
aren't too many guns around as the serfs DO get ****ed off.

"Politicians prefer unarmed peasants" ... an oldie, but goodie, bumper
sticker of yore.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Han wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the
election
but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.

Since when has bungling the economy, financial regulation, and war
anything
to do with skin color? You are against black people becoming involved in
politics, or am I misunderstanding?

You are completely misunderstanding me. It is no secret that a great
number of people voted for the current president *because* of his skin color
and that his opponent was afraid to call him out on his past associations,
lack of record, and past statements for fear of being called racist. I
personally don't care what the color of a person's skin is, I want to know
what they stand for, their core beliefs, and their commitment to the country
they are wanting to lead. I'd vote for somebody like Walter E. Williams in
a heartbeat. Not because of his color, but because I know he loves this
country and recognized the exceptionalism that is possible by unleashing a
free people to pursue their own dreams and destiny with minimal interference
by government.



For the record: not only the last previous administration is guilty on
many fronts (although the worst happened during their term(s)), quite a
number before were guilty too. And personal and corporate responsibility
should include an enforcement mechanism.


--

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

Rob Leatham

Han wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

.... snip

I don't think you will ever get it, Mark & Juanita. You are now paying
for their healthcare at emergency room rates. Get them a living wage
job, and have them pay for their own health care.

Your idea that this bill is forcing people to do anything is absurd.
They'll get the choice of insurance and even no insurance. But since
someone needs to pay for emergency care, even if they don't, fine them if
they don't get some coverage. That is choice. And yes, I do believe
that people should pay taxes, and this is indeed another tax of sorts. I
would like individual responsibility, but "they" should not have to pay
triply inflated proces just because they don't work for Harvard
University or GM.


I don't think you are ever going to get this until it smacks you between
the eyes in the future Han. If the only thing this bill did was provide
means to prevent having indigent care performed through emergency rooms, the
bill wouldn't need over 3000 pages (and that's not all of the bill, much of
that 3000 pages is references to other federal laws that are amended,
modified, or superseded by this abomination. There are elements of this
bill that set up "health care effectiveness panels" -- in real people terms,
these are panels that are going to decide, by bureaucratic fiat what
constitutes cost-effective treatment and who gets that treatment. It
contains language that dictates many elements of our lives having nothing
directly to do with healthcare. As the costs mount (as they are going to
do, it is ludicrous to think that a system for which taxes start now and
benefits start 4 years later is going to result in next cost reductions
after that first 10 years), those panels are also going decide how to ration
that care and who the privileged classes will be that get the best care as
well as dictating lifestyles based upon whatever the current health fad is
to "keep people healthy for the good of the system". Given the current
rhetoric, it's those nearing retirement age who are going to be considered
expendable when the cost crunches come.




--

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

Rob Leatham

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...

It is no secret that a great number of people voted for the current
president *because* of his skin color . . . .

How 'great' a number of people [do you think] voted against the current
president because of his skin color?
Inquiring minds . . . .

Dave in Houston

Robatoy wrote:

On Mar 21, 11:32Â*am, Han wrote:
Robatoy wrote
:

On Mar 21, 12:52Â*am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
[snipped the usual]

. Â*You are free to feel that way, but if
you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there,
don't try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.

How about a country with a Patriot Act?

I feel fine living in this country with a sort of democratic
representative republic. Â*(See other posts of mine referencing Radburn).
What I object to is the rabid reelection fever and crazed Pavlovian
reactions to lobbyists.

And that all has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, Robatoy. Â*I despise
some of the provisions there. Â*Remember, in Holland you now have to carry
ID all the time since the EU reguulation of that aspect became effective,
and in the US you better have ID with you too. Â*What about Kanuckistan,
Robatoy?


I raised the Patriot Act as an obvious example of a republican double
standard when they describe health reform as a loss of freedom. From
where I am sitting, either party is nothing but a collective of power
hungry scumbags driven by the lobbyists/special interest groups. And
no matter who the president is, he's influenced by way too many
rasputins like Dick Cheney or Rahm Emanuel. That Emanuel is one shady
sunnuvabitch.


The patriot act isn't even close to the same sort of thing -- only those
engaging in communication between known terrorist states and the US have any
sort of concern with the Patriot act --i.e, this act wasn't set up to
monitor your calls to Grandma in Illinois, but to facilitate the ability to
catch Jihad Janet contacting AQ in Yemen before a building in Manhattan went
up in smoke. This being pushed through now is designed to affect and impact
the life of every man, woman, and child in this country, making them
dependent upon the government for their health care.

World of difference between defending the republic from enemies foreign
and domestic vs. setting up an unconstitutional power grab.


.... snip
--

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

Rob Leatham

Dave In Texas wrote:



"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...

It is no secret that a great number of people voted for the current
president *because* of his skin color . . . .

How 'great' a number of people [do you think] voted against the
current
president because of his skin color?
Inquiring minds . . . .


There may have been a few, but as a personal opinion, not many.

OTOH, do you really believe that the 96% black vote that he garnered was
*not* based upon racism?



Dave in Houston

--

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

Rob Leatham

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:19:08 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:52:09 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:


... granting for the moment, the 30 Million people uninsured number
(it's
not correct as it includes illegals and those who, by choice, are
uninsured),

Wrong! See:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/sev...t-health-care/


how on earth does finding insurance for less than 10% of the
US population justify nationalizing 1/6 of the economy,

Nationalizing? Last time I looked, the "public option" was dead.

You're delusional if you don't think that is the end game. Controlling
insurance is the same thing with a different name.

destroying a
system with which most people are satisfied,

Oh, yeah? The polls show 40 some percent for, 40 some percent against
the total bill. When the individual parts are polled, support is well in
the majority.

When asked the right question, sure.

and setting us on a road to
inferior, rationed, health care as the program spending spirals out of
control?

Rationed? See the above reference. Spiraling spending? According to
the non-partisan CBO, the bill will save money.

Complete nonsense. Have you looked into the assumptions the CBO was REQUIRED
to figure in? ...including the estimates for the "recovery" and the $.5T
write-down of seniors?

Why does it take a 3000 page bill to insure 30 million people?
This bill is not about health care, it is about complete, absolute
control over peoples' lives.

Watch out for those black helicopters!

No, you'd better watch out for Congress. They've already stolen your brain.
Your wallet is next (but you likely won't miss it).

And speaking of that "public option", the US is the *only* industrialized
country where people can go broke paying medical bills. Every other such
country provides some sort of health care guarantees, whether private,
public, or a mix. But you, and folks like you, keep repeating "Everyone
is out of step but me."

Japan?

If you'd care to see how those countries, and even some of the
"developing" countries handle health care, look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

But I doubt you care, you'd rather just keep on blathering falsehoods and
exaggerations.

No falsehoods or exaggerations at all. We're broke and your children are will
be underwater for life.

On 21 Mar 2010 15:36:36 GMT, Han wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in
om:

No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the
election
but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.

Since when has bungling the economy, financial regulation, and war anything
to do with skin color? You are against black people becoming involved in
politics, or am I misunderstanding?

So, doubling down on the economy, financial regulations, and the war will make
it better. The fact is that many did vote for Obama because he was black.
More than voted against him because he was black.

For the record: not only the last previous administration is guilty on
many fronts (although the worst happened during their term(s)), quite a
number before were guilty too. And personal and corporate responsibility
should include an enforcement mechanism.

....and things were so bad that we had to do even more of the same. Great
logic there.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:26:04 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:

On Mar 21, 12:52 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
[snipped the usual]

. You are free to feel that way, but if
you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there,
don't
try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.

How about a country with a Patriot Act?

...who doesn't press for the removal of some 20 million KNOWN illegal
aliens or for the protection of our borders. Uckingfay Insaneyay.
The act isnt about security, it's about POWER, plain and simple.

All the act does is legalize what has been going on for decades.

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

The patriot act isn't even close to the same sort of thing -- only
those
engaging in communication between known terrorist states and the US
have any sort of concern with the Patriot act --i.e, this act wasn't
set up to monitor your calls to Grandma in Illinois, but to facilitate
the ability to catch Jihad Janet contacting AQ in Yemen before a
building in Manhattan went up in smoke.

However, it was quite likely that the PA was going to be used to find out
a little more about some common Joe. Or didn't you hear about things
like well-known senators being pulled off planes because their name had
come up on some list? I am furiously in favor of terrorists or candiate
terrorists being watched, but we do NOT NEED another McCarthy era.

This being pushed through now
is designed to affect and impact the life of every man, woman, and
child in this country, making them dependent upon the government for
their health care.

Fallacy, private health care is what is being regulated. Including a
program by which the government will force insurance companies to accept
people who want insurance. Sort of like the assigned risk pool for car
insurance. Are you against people having compulsory car insurance too?

World of difference between defending the republic from enemies
foreign and domestic vs. setting up an unconstitutional power grab.

If this is unconstitutional, the SCOTUS will eventually issue an opinion.
That is guaranteed.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

... snip

I don't think you will ever get it, Mark & Juanita. You are now
paying for their healthcare at emergency room rates. Get them a
living wage job, and have them pay for their own health care.

Your idea that this bill is forcing people to do anything is absurd.
They'll get the choice of insurance and even no insurance. But since
someone needs to pay for emergency care, even if they don't, fine
them if they don't get some coverage. That is choice. And yes, I do
believe that people should pay taxes, and this is indeed another tax
of sorts. I would like individual responsibility, but "they" should
not have to pay triply inflated proces just because they don't work
for Harvard University or GM.


I don't think you are ever going to get this until it smacks you
between
the eyes in the future Han. If the only thing this bill did was
provide means to prevent having indigent care performed through
emergency rooms, the bill wouldn't need over 3000 pages (and that's
not all of the bill, much of that 3000 pages is references to other
federal laws that are amended, modified, or superseded by this
abomination. There are elements of this bill that set up "health care
effectiveness panels" -- in real people terms, these are panels that
are going to decide, by bureaucratic fiat what constitutes
cost-effective treatment and who gets that treatment. It contains
language that dictates many elements of our lives having nothing
directly to do with healthcare. As the costs mount (as they are going
to do, it is ludicrous to think that a system for which taxes start
now and benefits start 4 years later is going to result in next cost
reductions after that first 10 years), those panels are also going
decide how to ration that care and who the privileged classes will be
that get the best care as well as dictating lifestyles based upon
whatever the current health fad is to "keep people healthy for the
good of the system". Given the current rhetoric, it's those nearing
retirement age who are going to be considered expendable when the cost
crunches come.

Right now care is being rationed in many ways that may not seem obvious
to you. One of the great things of current medical practice is that
rather objective studies are conducted that show, for instance, that a
water pill (hydrochlorothiazide) is just as good if not better than
expensive angiotensin receptor blockers (e.g. losartan, Cozaar) to
control blood pressure. Hctz costs me $3.18 for 90 days, Cozaar $60.
Unfortunately I seem to have to take both. Whether your doctor
prescribes one or the other or both is between you and him. But that is
prescribing practice.

So "effectiveness studies" should give you better care (less side
effects) and less costs. Your irrational fear of someone deciding for
you what kind of care you are going to get has warped your mind. Do your
research of what you think you need and have a good talk with someone you
trust, then with your doctor. And, please, do write down your living
will, advance directives or whatever you want to call them.

As I understand it, these bills/laws will tear down the privileged care
walls you are correctly afraid of. Right now, if you don't have money
and insurance (BOTH!!!) you are in danger of getting inferior medical
care. If your doctor and hospital don't have to figure out anymore how
to get the most money out of your illnesses, because the reimbursements
are much easier set, then you will get better care. Note: I am getting
weekly if not more frequently emails about how this or that insurance
company has changed the rules for this or that medication or procedure
(courtesy of the oncology division). More uniformity will be better for
most.

Some people might indeed fall through some crack. That is because much
as it is thought, medicine is NOT an exact science, and mistakes are
still being made. However, with the advent of better diagnostics and
electronic administration, that will improve more and more.

You are right, that these bills are overly complicated. Thank the
lawyers. They are the ones who made the HIPAA act into what it became.
Not the portability of health information that was the original intent,
but a multipage collection of gobbledygook that absolves anyone other
than yourself from making errors.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

On 21 Mar 2010 15:36:36 GMT, Han wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in
news:UbSdnc8F3vS2PzjWnZ2dnUVZ_tU6AAAA@supernews. com:

No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the
election
but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.

Since when has bungling the economy, financial regulation, and war
anything to do with skin color? You are against black people becoming
involved in politics, or am I misunderstanding?

So, doubling down on the economy, financial regulations, and the war
will make it better. The fact is that many did vote for Obama because
he was black. More than voted against him because he was black.

For the record: not only the last previous administration is guilty
on many fronts (although the worst happened during their term(s)),
quite a number before were guilty too. And personal and corporate
responsibility should include an enforcement mechanism.

...and things were so bad that we had to do even more of the same.
Great logic there.

I am happy that we can't do the controlled experiment (go back in time
and try some other way to "cure" the Wall Street fiasco of 2008-9). I am
convinced (yes, it's personal) that the current way is better for most.
I wish we could just punish the b'tards that brought us to the brink, but
I don't think that would help little Joe and Susie any better than this.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 3/21/2010 7:35 PM, Han wrote:

So "effectiveness studies" should give you better care (less side
effects) and less costs. Your irrational fear of someone deciding for
you what kind of care you are going to get has warped your mind. Do your
research of what you think you need and have a good talk with someone you
trust, then with your doctor. And, please, do write down your living
will, advance directives or whatever you want to call them.

I don't mind giving you a personal, real life, less than 72 hours old,
example of the above.

Appointment at the VA for shoulder problem on this past Friday AM
(believe me, I _earned_ the VA medical care ("entitlement", if you
wish), the hard way!).

This was the third visit on this issue, taking four months to get this
far, each visit hopefully getting closer to an actual diagnoses, and
subsequent relief, based on something besides conjecture on the part of
the primary care physician, a GI specialist (but as long as I ask the
right questions, a competent health care professional).

Not enough doctors to go around in Orthopedics, so, after two and a half
hour wait, get a PA, (very accented English and hard to understand, but
very nice, attentive and obviously caring). PA ultimately makes
determination to give steroid injection in shoulder (step 5 of
apparently a 10 step procedure that must be followed, in order).

Relief is not as obvious as have been led to believe, so after a few
hours start doing some research on the expected efficacy of the
injection, with particular emphasis upon the site of the PA administered
injection, (posterior shoulder in this instance, with the main problem
exhibited on the anterior).

From a doctor friend: "A lateral injection is generally the preferred
site and best for the desired result. The posterior location is
considered the easiest place to administer the injection. It is the site
that requires the least amount of skill, and the site where it is
recommended for the unskilled to administer the procedure".

Light pops on ... basically, got a steroid injection (ouch!), in an area
of the shoulder least likely to benefit from the procedure, and by an
unskilled PA, with no doctor available.

Next possible appointment, and to then OK the escalation to the step 6 -
to see if an MRI is warranted: late July, 2010.

Don't get me wrong, this better than no care at all, but arguably
"second rate" by any medical yardstick.

That said, I accept the entirety of any blame because I failed to do my
homework beforehand. Had I done that, I could have asked the correct,
informed, questions and probably gotten a better result.

However, this anecdote is NOT partisan conjecture ... it is actual, day
before yesterday, "US government health care", in practice.

Moral: we should be damn careful what we wish for ...and, if you get
nothing else from this little anecdote, most definitely prepare yourself
to do MUCH more in managing your own health care when this bill passes.

.... and it appears that it will pass.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
On 3/21/2010 7:35 PM, Han wrote:

So "effectiveness studies" should give you better care (less side
effects) and less costs. Your irrational fear of someone deciding for
you what kind of care you are going to get has warped your mind. Do your
research of what you think you need and have a good talk with someone you
trust, then with your doctor. And, please, do write down your living
will, advance directives or whatever you want to call them.

I don't mind giving you a personal, real life, less than 72 hours old,
example of the above.

Appointment at the VA for shoulder problem on this past Friday AM (believe
me, I _earned_ the VA medical care ("entitlement", if you wish), the hard
way!).

This was the third visit on this issue, taking four months to get this
far, each visit hopefully getting closer to an actual diagnoses, and
subsequent relief, based on something besides conjecture on the part of
the primary care physician, a GI specialist (but as long as I ask the
right questions, a competent health care professional).

Not enough doctors to go around in Orthopedics, so, after two and a half
hour wait, get a PA, (very accented English and hard to understand, but
very nice, attentive and obviously caring). PA ultimately makes
determination to give steroid injection in shoulder (step 5 of apparently
a 10 step procedure that must be followed, in order).

Relief is not as obvious as have been led to believe, so after a few hours
start doing some research on the expected efficacy of the injection, with
particular emphasis upon the site of the PA administered injection,
(posterior shoulder in this instance, with the main problem exhibited on
the anterior).

From a doctor friend: "A lateral injection is generally the preferred site
and best for the desired result. The posterior location is considered the
easiest place to administer the injection. It is the site that requires
the least amount of skill, and the site where it is recommended for the
unskilled to administer the procedure".

Light pops on ... basically, got a steroid injection (ouch!), in an area
of the shoulder least likely to benefit from the procedure, and by an
unskilled PA, with no doctor available.

Next possible appointment, and to then OK the escalation to the step 6 -
to see if an MRI is warranted: late July, 2010.

Don't get me wrong, this better than no care at all, but arguably "second
rate" by any medical yardstick.

That said, I accept the entirety of any blame because I failed to do my
homework beforehand. Had I done that, I could have asked the correct,
informed, questions and probably gotten a better result.

However, this anecdote is NOT partisan conjecture ... it is actual, day
before yesterday, "US government health care", in practice.

Moral: we should be damn careful what we wish for ...and, if you get
nothing else from this little anecdote, most definitely prepare yourself
to do MUCH more in managing your own health care when this bill passes.

You need to do that regardless.

I have a story similar to yours playing out over 42 months. Difference being
civilian treatment: steroid injection of lumbar spine, progressing to spinal
stenosis and surgery for fusion of lumbar vertebrae, progressing to
continued issues and an MRI of the cervical spine showing stenosis that was
Obviously there prior to the first surgery, progressing to fusion of
cervical vertabrae. ALL choreographed by The Insurance Company who
determined the allowability of the MRIs, and the initial Useless steroid
injection. Had I thought about it, I could have Faked symptoms to get the
MRI of my neck at the same time as the lumbar area and may have had both
surgeries sooner. And, of course, all the screwing around left damage ...

Not that I'm a fan of the idiotic bill being voted on as we speak.

"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
:

On 21 Mar 2010 15:36:36 GMT, Han wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in
news:UbSdnc8F3vS2PzjWnZ2dnUVZ_tU6AAAA@supernews .com:

No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the
election
but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.

Since when has bungling the economy, financial regulation, and war
anything to do with skin color? You are against black people becoming
involved in politics, or am I misunderstanding?

So, doubling down on the economy, financial regulations, and the war
will make it better. The fact is that many did vote for Obama because
he was black. More than voted against him because he was black.

For the record: not only the last previous administration is guilty
on many fronts (although the worst happened during their term(s)),
quite a number before were guilty too. And personal and corporate
responsibility should include an enforcement mechanism.

...and things were so bad that we had to do even more of the same.
Great logic there.

I am happy that we can't do the controlled experiment (go back in time
and try some other way to "cure" the Wall Street fiasco of 2008-9). I am
convinced (yes, it's personal) that the current way is better for most.
I wish we could just punish the b'tards that brought us to the brink, but
I don't think that would help little Joe and Susie any better than this.

Well, the good news is somebody beat the crap out of Bernie Madoff in jail.
Seems he owed the guy money ...

On 3/21/2010 8:27 PM, LDosser wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message
...
On 3/21/2010 7:35 PM, Han wrote:

So "effectiveness studies" should give you better care (less side
effects) and less costs. Your irrational fear of someone deciding for
you what kind of care you are going to get has warped your mind. Do your
research of what you think you need and have a good talk with someone
you
trust, then with your doctor. And, please, do write down your living
will, advance directives or whatever you want to call them.

I don't mind giving you a personal, real life, less than 72 hours old,
example of the above.

Appointment at the VA for shoulder problem on this past Friday AM
(believe me, I _earned_ the VA medical care ("entitlement", if you
wish), the hard way!).

This was the third visit on this issue, taking four months to get this
far, each visit hopefully getting closer to an actual diagnoses, and
subsequent relief, based on something besides conjecture on the part
of the primary care physician, a GI specialist (but as long as I ask
the right questions, a competent health care professional).

Not enough doctors to go around in Orthopedics, so, after two and a
half hour wait, get a PA, (very accented English and hard to
understand, but very nice, attentive and obviously caring). PA
ultimately makes determination to give steroid injection in shoulder
(step 5 of apparently a 10 step procedure that must be followed, in
order).

Relief is not as obvious as have been led to believe, so after a few
hours start doing some research on the expected efficacy of the
injection, with particular emphasis upon the site of the PA
administered injection, (posterior shoulder in this instance, with the
main problem exhibited on the anterior).

From a doctor friend: "A lateral injection is generally the preferred
site and best for the desired result. The posterior location is
considered the easiest place to administer the injection. It is the
site that requires the least amount of skill, and the site where it is
recommended for the unskilled to administer the procedure".

Light pops on ... basically, got a steroid injection (ouch!), in an
area of the shoulder least likely to benefit from the procedure, and
by an unskilled PA, with no doctor available.

Next possible appointment, and to then OK the escalation to the step 6
- to see if an MRI is warranted: late July, 2010.

Don't get me wrong, this better than no care at all, but arguably
"second rate" by any medical yardstick.

That said, I accept the entirety of any blame because I failed to do
my homework beforehand. Had I done that, I could have asked the
correct, informed, questions and probably gotten a better result.

However, this anecdote is NOT partisan conjecture ... it is actual,
day before yesterday, "US government health care", in practice.

Moral: we should be damn careful what we wish for ...and, if you get
nothing else from this little anecdote, most definitely prepare
yourself to do MUCH more in managing your own health care when this
bill passes.

You need to do that regardless.

I have a story similar to yours playing out over 42 months. Difference
being civilian treatment: steroid injection of lumbar spine, progressing
to spinal stenosis and surgery for fusion of lumbar vertebrae,
progressing to continued issues and an MRI of the cervical spine showing
stenosis that was Obviously there prior to the first surgery,
progressing to fusion of cervical vertabrae. ALL choreographed by The
Insurance Company who determined the allowability of the MRIs, and the
initial Useless steroid injection. Had I thought about it, I could have
Faked symptoms to get the MRI of my neck at the same time as the lumbar
area and may have had both surgeries sooner. And, of course, all the
screwing around left damage ...

Not that I'm a fan of the idiotic bill being voted on as we speak.

My little complaint pales in comparison ... sorry to hear that. Going
though similar insurance dance with youngest daughter's bid to not go
blind ... tough choices, but it could be 1900 with NO choices.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
On 3/21/2010 8:27 PM, LDosser wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message
...
On 3/21/2010 7:35 PM, Han wrote:

So "effectiveness studies" should give you better care (less side
effects) and less costs. Your irrational fear of someone deciding for
you what kind of care you are going to get has warped your mind. Do
your
research of what you think you need and have a good talk with someone
you
trust, then with your doctor. And, please, do write down your living
will, advance directives or whatever you want to call them.

I don't mind giving you a personal, real life, less than 72 hours old,
example of the above.

Appointment at the VA for shoulder problem on this past Friday AM
(believe me, I _earned_ the VA medical care ("entitlement", if you
wish), the hard way!).

This was the third visit on this issue, taking four months to get this
far, each visit hopefully getting closer to an actual diagnoses, and
subsequent relief, based on something besides conjecture on the part
of the primary care physician, a GI specialist (but as long as I ask
the right questions, a competent health care professional).

Not enough doctors to go around in Orthopedics, so, after two and a
half hour wait, get a PA, (very accented English and hard to
understand, but very nice, attentive and obviously caring). PA
ultimately makes determination to give steroid injection in shoulder
(step 5 of apparently a 10 step procedure that must be followed, in
order).

Relief is not as obvious as have been led to believe, so after a few
hours start doing some research on the expected efficacy of the
injection, with particular emphasis upon the site of the PA
administered injection, (posterior shoulder in this instance, with the
main problem exhibited on the anterior).

From a doctor friend: "A lateral injection is generally the preferred
site and best for the desired result. The posterior location is
considered the easiest place to administer the injection. It is the
site that requires the least amount of skill, and the site where it is
recommended for the unskilled to administer the procedure".

Light pops on ... basically, got a steroid injection (ouch!), in an
area of the shoulder least likely to benefit from the procedure, and
by an unskilled PA, with no doctor available.

Next possible appointment, and to then OK the escalation to the step 6
- to see if an MRI is warranted: late July, 2010.

Don't get me wrong, this better than no care at all, but arguably
"second rate" by any medical yardstick.

That said, I accept the entirety of any blame because I failed to do
my homework beforehand. Had I done that, I could have asked the
correct, informed, questions and probably gotten a better result.

However, this anecdote is NOT partisan conjecture ... it is actual,
day before yesterday, "US government health care", in practice.

Moral: we should be damn careful what we wish for ...and, if you get
nothing else from this little anecdote, most definitely prepare
yourself to do MUCH more in managing your own health care when this
bill passes.

You need to do that regardless.

I have a story similar to yours playing out over 42 months. Difference
being civilian treatment: steroid injection of lumbar spine, progressing
to spinal stenosis and surgery for fusion of lumbar vertebrae,
progressing to continued issues and an MRI of the cervical spine showing
stenosis that was Obviously there prior to the first surgery,
progressing to fusion of cervical vertabrae. ALL choreographed by The
Insurance Company who determined the allowability of the MRIs, and the
initial Useless steroid injection. Had I thought about it, I could have
Faked symptoms to get the MRI of my neck at the same time as the lumbar
area and may have had both surgeries sooner. And, of course, all the
screwing around left damage ...

Not that I'm a fan of the idiotic bill being voted on as we speak.

My little complaint pales in comparison

No medical complaint pales.

... sorry to hear that. Going though similar insurance dance with youngest
daughter's bid to not go blind ... tough choices, but it could be 1900
with NO choices.

Well, the medicine is better ... Hopefully your daughter will benefit from
the improvements in medicine.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
Dave In Texas wrote:



"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...

It is no secret that a great number of people voted for the current
president *because* of his skin color . . . .

How 'great' a number of people [do you think] voted against the
current
president because of his skin color?
Inquiring minds . . . .


There may have been a few, but as a personal opinion, not many.

I could have predicted that response.

OTOH, do you really believe that the 96% black vote that he garnered was
*not* based upon racism?

He's a Democrat; Any Democrat would have gotten 96% of the black vote.

Dave in Houston

On 3/21/2010 12:44 PM, Han wrote:
Doug wrote in news:CRrpn.119060
:

He's saying if they're in the 40% of folks who don't pay income taxes, a
tax credit is worth zilch - so still not able to afford health insurance
- unless it's done like the current "earned income" tax credit where you
get a income tax refund even if you paid no income tax.

But of course that is the way it should be done, and I am pretty sure it is
something like that in the proposed bill.

The text of the bill can be found at
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590eas. txt.pdf.

Do find the clause which provides such payments. There is a complex
scheme where insurance companies are supposed to find out the income
levels of their customers and provide the poorest ones discounts but I
can't find anything about the government making payments to anyone.

On 3/21/2010 11:28 AM, Han wrote:
Mark& wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

Mark& wrote in news:rOCdnfBjI7-
:

To use this kind of trick to attempt to take over 1/6 of the US
economy is nothing short of stalinist and dictatorial.

You and I are paying for the indigent medical care now already.
Better to get some rules that will prevent personal bankruptcy and/or
death and exhibit some compassion for the less fortunate than this
idea of everyone for themselves AND let the other guy rot.


... granting for the moment, the 30 Million people uninsured number
(it's
not correct as it includes illegals and those who, by choice, are
uninsured), how on earth does finding insurance for less than 10% of
the US population justify nationalizing 1/6 of the economy, destroying
a system with which most people are satisfied, and setting us on a
road to inferior, rationed, health care as the program spending
spirals out of control? Why does it take a 3000 page bill to insure
30 million people? This bill is not about health care, it is about
complete, absolute control over peoples' lives. This is a bill that
has "effectiveness panels" -- i.e., it's going to have people like
those at the department of motor vehicles deciding what treatments are
effective and affordable, and when you should "just take the pain
pill". There are things in this bill that have nothing to do with
health care -- at one time it was going to regulate food vending
machines (don't know if that is still there or not).



There ought to be a better way than democracy ...


We don't have a democracy, we have a representative republic.
However,
that statement above is still truly frightening. i.e., you are
willing to surrender your personal freedoms to someone who claims to
know better than you what is in your best interests. You are free to
feel that way, but if you do, go find a country that is governed that
way and live there, don't try to force that enslavement on the rest of
us.

I don't think you will ever get it, Mark& Juanita. You are now paying
for their healthcare at emergency room rates. Get them a living wage
job, and have them pay for their own health care.


Your idea that this bill is forcing people to do anything is absurd.

So what do you believe that legislation that says "buy insurance or pay
a fine" is intended to accomplish if it is not to force people to
purchase insurance?

They'll get the choice of insurance and even no insurance.

Well, we all have the choice of obeying or violating the law, however
the only way under the bill before the Congress that one will be able to
opt for "no insurance" is to be willing to commit an unlawful act.

But since
someone needs to pay for emergency care, even if they don't, fine them if
they don't get some coverage.

I see. So being ordered to do something under pain of confiscation of
your personal property is not "forcing".

That is choice.

Yes, the choice of obeying or being a criminal.

And yes, I do believe
that people should pay taxes, and this is indeed another tax of sorts.

No, it isn't a tax. When the government says "buy this product or else"
it is not a "tax". How would you like if it they said "buy a car or
else" or "buy a television or else" or "buy Windows or else"? The
principle is the same.

I
would like individual responsibility, but "they" should not have to pay
triply inflated proces just because they don't work for Harvard
University or GM.

Who is this "they"?

On 22 Mar 2010 00:41:11 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 21 Mar 2010 15:36:36 GMT, Han wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote in
news:UbSdnc8F3vS2PzjWnZ2dnUVZ_tU6AAAA@supernews .com:

No, unfortunately. Just confirms what many of us knew before the
election
but too many people were just too blinded by skin color to see it.

Since when has bungling the economy, financial regulation, and war
anything to do with skin color? You are against black people becoming
involved in politics, or am I misunderstanding?

So, doubling down on the economy, financial regulations, and the war
will make it better. The fact is that many did vote for Obama because
he was black. More than voted against him because he was black.

For the record: not only the last previous administration is guilty
on many fronts (although the worst happened during their term(s)),
quite a number before were guilty too. And personal and corporate
responsibility should include an enforcement mechanism.

...and things were so bad that we had to do even more of the same.
Great logic there.

I am happy that we can't do the controlled experiment (go back in time
and try some other way to "cure" the Wall Street fiasco of 2008-9). I am
convinced (yes, it's personal) that the current way is better for most.
I wish we could just punish the b'tards that brought us to the brink, but
I don't think that would help little Joe and Susie any better than this.

So you think it's a good idea to continue the policies that got us here in the
first place, trebled? boggle

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:10:28 -0500, the infamous Swingman
scrawled the following:

On 3/21/2010 2:03 PM, Robatoy wrote:

earn so that they can be taxed/plundered. Same-ol'-same-old. And when
the powers at the helm want to get bolder in their quest for rape/
pillage/taxes, they also know they need to be careful that there
aren't too many guns around as the serfs DO get ****ed off.

"Politicians prefer unarmed peasants" ... an oldie, but goodie, bumper
sticker of yore.

After today, I'll bet that more Demonrats believe in that little
saying. I predict an extreme backlash to this forced insurance crap
they call "a healthcare package". Duck and cover, folks. I believe
the plumbum may be about to hit the fan. We're in for a rough week.

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler

Dave In Texas wrote:



"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
Dave In Texas wrote:



"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...

It is no secret that a great number of people voted for the current
president *because* of his skin color . . . .

How 'great' a number of people [do you think] voted against the
current
president because of his skin color?
Inquiring minds . . . .


There may have been a few, but as a personal opinion, not many.

I could have predicted that response.

OTOH, do you really believe that the 96% black vote that he garnered was
*not* based upon racism?

He's a Democrat; Any Democrat would have gotten 96% of the black
vote.

Umm, no. Although blacks predominantly vote Democrat, which is completely
baffling considering the results of the programs Democrats have foisted upon
them for the past 50 years, the previously largest percentage was 94% for
Johnson in 1964 after the Republicans helped him pass the civil rights act.
Clinton garnered 74% in 1992, Gore got 90% in 2000, Kerry got 88%. 96% was
pretty much unprecedented.

Actually the black population is a case study in what happens to a group
that allows itself to become a dependency class. Look at the unemployment
rate, the percentage of unwed, single parent households in that group. It
was not always that way. Before the growth of welfare, those rates were
equivalent to the rest of the country (especially the family statistics).
Congress has just passed a law that is going to try to transform the rest of
the country into a dependency class.


Dave in Houston

--

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

Rob Leatham

LDosser wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:26:04 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:

On Mar 21, 12:52 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
[snipped the usual]

. You are free to feel that way, but if
you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there,
don't
try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.

How about a country with a Patriot Act?

...who doesn't press for the removal of some 20 million KNOWN illegal
aliens or for the protection of our borders. Uckingfay Insaneyay.
The act isnt about security, it's about POWER, plain and simple.

All the act does is legalize what has been going on for decades.

... and makes them voters. And for whom do you think those votes will
fall? There is a method to the Dem's madness and it is going to destroy the
country.




--

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

Rob Leatham

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
LDosser wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:26:04 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:

On Mar 21, 12:52 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
[snipped the usual]

. You are free to feel that way, but if
you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there,
don't
try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.

How about a country with a Patriot Act?

...who doesn't press for the removal of some 20 million KNOWN illegal
aliens or for the protection of our borders. Uckingfay Insaneyay.
The act isnt about security, it's about POWER, plain and simple.

All the act does is legalize what has been going on for decades.

... and makes them voters. And for whom do you think those votes will
fall? There is a method to the Dem's madness and it is going to destroy
the
country.


The Patriot Act?

"Dave In Texas" wrote in message
...


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
Dave In Texas wrote:



"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...

It is no secret that a great number of people voted for the current
president *because* of his skin color . . . .

How 'great' a number of people [do you think] voted against the
current
president because of his skin color?
Inquiring minds . . . .


There may have been a few, but as a personal opinion, not many.

I could have predicted that response.

OTOH, do you really believe that the 96% black vote that he garnered was
*not* based upon racism?

He's a Democrat; Any Democrat would have gotten 96% of the black vote.


Did Gore? I don't think even Clinton got that much.

Swingman wrote in
:

On 3/21/2010 7:35 PM, Han wrote:

So "effectiveness studies" should give you better care (less side
effects) and less costs. Your irrational fear of someone deciding
for you what kind of care you are going to get has warped your mind.
Do your research of what you think you need and have a good talk with
someone you trust, then with your doctor. And, please, do write down
your living will, advance directives or whatever you want to call
them.

I don't mind giving you a personal, real life, less than 72 hours old,
example of the above.

Appointment at the VA for shoulder problem on this past Friday AM
(believe me, I _earned_ the VA medical care ("entitlement", if you
wish), the hard way!).

This was the third visit on this issue, taking four months to get this
far, each visit hopefully getting closer to an actual diagnoses, and
subsequent relief, based on something besides conjecture on the part
of the primary care physician, a GI specialist (but as long as I ask
the right questions, a competent health care professional).

Not enough doctors to go around in Orthopedics, so, after two and a
half hour wait, get a PA, (very accented English and hard to
understand, but very nice, attentive and obviously caring). PA
ultimately makes determination to give steroid injection in shoulder
(step 5 of apparently a 10 step procedure that must be followed, in
order).

Relief is not as obvious as have been led to believe, so after a few
hours start doing some research on the expected efficacy of the
injection, with particular emphasis upon the site of the PA
administered injection, (posterior shoulder in this instance, with the
main problem exhibited on the anterior).

From a doctor friend: "A lateral injection is generally the preferred
site and best for the desired result. The posterior location is
considered the easiest place to administer the injection. It is the
site that requires the least amount of skill, and the site where it is
recommended for the unskilled to administer the procedure".

Light pops on ... basically, got a steroid injection (ouch!), in an
area of the shoulder least likely to benefit from the procedure, and
by an unskilled PA, with no doctor available.

Next possible appointment, and to then OK the escalation to the step 6
- to see if an MRI is warranted: late July, 2010.

Don't get me wrong, this better than no care at all, but arguably
"second rate" by any medical yardstick.

That said, I accept the entirety of any blame because I failed to do
my homework beforehand. Had I done that, I could have asked the
correct, informed, questions and probably gotten a better result.

However, this anecdote is NOT partisan conjecture ... it is actual,
day before yesterday, "US government health care", in practice.

Moral: we should be damn careful what we wish for ...and, if you get
nothing else from this little anecdote, most definitely prepare
yourself to do MUCH more in managing your own health care when this
bill passes.

... and it appears that it will pass.

As LDosser, I have a comparable story, but far less severe than either of
you. Pains in shoulder radiating down to hand. Turned out that I have
some osteoarthritis in neck vertebrae. Exercise helps, but all the tests
to get there! Including something the name of which I forget, whereby
needles administered electric shocks to find out whether there was
something wrong with the nerves in my arm. My problem was made worse by
my posture sitting at a keyboard almost all day.

I hope your daughter gets the right care soon, what is the current
diagnosis?

As for you, Karl, have you tried asking the patient advocate for
assistance? I know someone like that should exist since I see all the
placards in the Manhattan VA. In addition, without diagnosing your
problem, could physical therapy help with mobility, and therefore help
you have less pain? (In the Manhattan VA I ran into a {bleeped} PT tech,
so I had no help there).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

snip

Sorry you feel that way. See my corollary with car insurance.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

So you think it's a good idea to continue the policies that got us
here in the first place, trebled? boggle

The policies that got us here were lack of regulation, and glorifying and
rewarding greed. In reverse order.

The problem is how to fix it without causing more harm than is already
done. And indeed, evenyually our grandchildren will pay the price.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

The essence of what you say is probably correct. However, the Repugni-ones
have completely lost the ball because here they had the opportunity to come
up with really useful stuff, and all they can say is NO.

The legislative process is horsetrading, and if you say NO you get nothing.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:33:41 -0700, the infamous "LDosser"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:26:04 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following:

On Mar 21, 12:52 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
[snipped the usual]

. You are free to feel that way, but if
you do, go find a country that is governed that way and live there,
don't
try to force that enslavement on the rest of us.

How about a country with a Patriot Act?

...who doesn't press for the removal of some 20 million KNOWN illegal
aliens or for the protection of our borders. Uckingfay Insaneyay.
The act isnt about security, it's about POWER, plain and simple.

All the act does is legalize what has been going on for decades.

While it may do that, it also VASTLY increases the power of the
departments affected (and newly created.) Big Brother is here.

--
If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we
shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do.
-- Samuel Butler