On 3/22/2010 6:55 AM, Han wrote:
"J. wrote in
:

snip

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

I do not see your "corollary with car insurance" anywhere, however
people keep trotting this out and it is crap.

Nobody is told "you must buy car insurance". They are told that _if_
you have a car and _if_ you want to register it to be operated on public
roads, _then_ you are required to have liability insurance.

If you don't have a car or don't operate it on public roads then you are
not required to have car insurance.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Nobody is told "you must buy car insurance". They are told that _if_ you
have a car and _if_ you want to register it to be operated on public
roads, _then_ you are required to have liability insurance.

If you don't have a car or don't operate it on public roads then you are
not required to have car insurance.

So, if your major organs don't function then you won't be required to
have health insurance.
My grandfather who died in 1973 at the age of 90 was the only person
I've ever known who never owned or drove a motor vehicle of any kind.

Dave in Houston

J. Clarke wrote:
On 3/22/2010 6:55 AM, Han wrote:
"J. wrote in
:

snip

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

I do not see your "corollary with car insurance" anywhere, however
people keep trotting this out and it is crap.

Nobody is told "you must buy car insurance". They are told that _if_
you have a car and _if_ you want to register it to be operated on public
roads, _then_ you are required to have liability insurance.

If you don't have a car or don't operate it on public roads then you are
not required to have car insurance.


....and it isn't the federal government that requires it anyway, it's the
individual states as it should be according to the tenth amendment of
the US constitution.

On 3/22/2010 10:07 AM, Dave In Texas wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Nobody is told "you must buy car insurance". They are told that _if_
you have a car and _if_ you want to register it to be operated on
public roads, _then_ you are required to have liability insurance.

If you don't have a car or don't operate it on public roads then you
are not required to have car insurance.

So, if your major organs don't function then you won't be required to
have health insurance.

And you have some kind of point here?

My grandfather who died in 1973 at the age of 90 was the only person
I've ever known who never owned or drove a motor vehicle of any kind.

Well if car insurance was handled like this law handles medical
insurance then he'd still have had to buy car insurance.

The fact that your circle of friends all own cars doesn't mean squat.
If you lived in Manhattan instead of Houston you would have had a
different experience. Or parts of Pennsylvania or Ohio. And none of
them were told by the government "buy a car or we'll fine you the price
of a car".

On 22 Mar 2010 10:59:04 GMT, Han wrote:

" 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.

What changed? Fanny and Freddie are still doing *exactly* the same things
that got us in trouble in the first place. We're still spending money that
our grandchildren cannot ever repay. ...and three times more of it.

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

No, they'll never be able to afford it and we're now on the path of doubling
down every few years. There is *NO* reduction in even the rate of increase in
sight.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 3/22/2010 10:07 AM, Dave In Texas wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Nobody is told "you must buy car insurance". They are told that _if_
you have a car and _if_ you want to register it to be operated on
public roads, _then_ you are required to have liability insurance.

If you don't have a car or don't operate it on public roads then you
are not required to have car insurance.

So, if your major organs don't function then you won't be required to
have health insurance.

And you have some kind of point here?

The point is that the state of Texas mandates that I have/purchase
liability auto insurance if I want to drive on public roadways.

Dave in Houston

"Dave In Texas" wrote in news:4fUpn.113707$Up1.102185@en-
nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com:

The point is that the state of Texas mandates that I have/purchase
liability auto insurance if I want to drive on public roadways.

SO if you want to live you should buy health insurance. Life insurance is
for when you die ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 3/22/2010 8:45 PM, Dave In Texas wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 3/22/2010 10:07 AM, Dave In Texas wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Nobody is told "you must buy car insurance". They are told that _if_
you have a car and _if_ you want to register it to be operated on
public roads, _then_ you are required to have liability insurance.

If you don't have a car or don't operate it on public roads then you
are not required to have car insurance.

So, if your major organs don't function then you won't be required to
have health insurance.

And you have some kind of point here?

The point is that the state of Texas mandates that I have/purchase
liability auto insurance if I want to drive on public roadways.

And that has what do with "major organs don't function then you won't be
required to have health insurance"?

Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?

"Han" wrote in message
...
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.

Testing electric conduction. They were going to put me through that hoop
until the neuro-surgeon got a look at the MRI and called me at home. Just
about had a heart attack getting a call from a physician at home. ()

On 22 Mar 2010 10:53:17 GMT, the infamous Han
scrawled the following:

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.

Han, I had some temporary pins and needles radiating down the back of
my arm to my wrist and hand. I got a used copy of _Gray's Anatomy_
and discussed my condition with a masseuse. (Massage and chiropractic
are my only medical choices when possible.) I tracked it to poor
posture and tight neck muscles. Look into the TheraCane. I merely
took a rubber cup and put it on the curved section of a wooden cane
and use it to do acupressure on the levator scapulae and infraspinatus
muscles, as well as the trapezius and rhomboid on the right. When
those got tight enough, pain radiated.

5 minutes of self-massage with the cane (and/or a minute or two of
stretching) takes my pain away immediately, whenever it comes back.
And it's all Free! (misdiagnosis free, wasted time free, and drug
free)


--
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

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 3/22/2010 8:45 PM, Dave In Texas wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 3/22/2010 10:07 AM, Dave In Texas wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Nobody is told "you must buy car insurance". They are told that _if_
you have a car and _if_ you want to register it to be operated on
public roads, _then_ you are required to have liability insurance.

If you don't have a car or don't operate it on public roads then you
are not required to have car insurance.

So, if your major organs don't function then you won't be required to
have health insurance.

And you have some kind of point here?

The point is that the state of Texas mandates that I have/purchase
liability auto insurance if I want to drive on public roadways.

And that has what do with "major organs don't function then you won't be
required to have health insurance"?

Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?

I'm sorry; I thought your contention was that government doesn't force
you to buy auto insurance which you extrapolated into the notion that
government should [therefore] not force you to buy health insurance.

Dave in Houston

"LDosser" wrote in
:

Testing electric conduction. They were going to put me through that
hoop until the neuro-surgeon got a look at the MRI and called me at
home. Just about had a heart attack getting a call from a physician at
home. ()

I would advice against undergoing this test. It is painful. Don't take
the test unless there is absolutely no other cause for the pain you have,
and it is determined beforehand with great certainty that the test will
indeed demonstrate that nerve conduction problems are the cause of the
pain.

I get calls from my urologist at home all the time. He is always happy to
say there was no problem found. Or he is asking how I feel after the
procedure. SO far so good

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Mar 22, 10:14*pm, "LDosser" wrote:
"Han" wrote in message

...



Swingman wrote in
m:

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.

Testing electric conduction. They were going to put me through that hoop
until the neuro-surgeon got a look at the MRI and called me at home. Just
about had a heart attack getting a call from a physician at home. ()

I once had a doctor call me at night. Evidently the lab called her
reporting that my fasting blood sugar was 40 so she immediately called
me and left a voice mail. When I called back she asked how I was
feeling, then sorta laughed. If the lab was accurate she would have
noticed it when I was there and that there was really no point in
calling in any case. ;-)

On 3/23/2010 12:27 AM, Dave In Texas wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 3/22/2010 8:45 PM, Dave In Texas wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
On 3/22/2010 10:07 AM, Dave In Texas wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Nobody is told "you must buy car insurance". They are told that _if_
you have a car and _if_ you want to register it to be operated on
public roads, _then_ you are required to have liability insurance.

If you don't have a car or don't operate it on public roads then you
are not required to have car insurance.

So, if your major organs don't function then you won't be required to
have health insurance.

And you have some kind of point here?

The point is that the state of Texas mandates that I have/purchase
liability auto insurance if I want to drive on public roadways.

And that has what do with "major organs don't function then you won't
be required to have health insurance"?

Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?

I'm sorry; I thought your contention was that government doesn't force
you to buy auto insurance which you extrapolated into the notion that
government should [therefore] not force you to buy health insurance.

So you're saying what, that the government can withdraw your privilege
to use your major organs if you don't pay for insurance?

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:41:42 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

Nobody is told "you must buy car insurance". They are told that _if_
you have a car and _if_ you want to register it to be operated on public
roads, _then_ you are required to have liability insurance.

If you don't have a car or don't operate it on public roads then you are
not required to have car insurance.

No, but no mechanic is forced to fix your car for free. Hospitals must
provide at least some care to people who can't pay.

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

My news server was down yesterday so I had to copy krw'S post from
Google. Unfortunately, that caused the loss of one level of , so I
indented my responses below. Sorry 'bout that.


Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
From: "
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:24:28 -0500
Local: Sun, Mar 21 2010 4:24 pm
Subject: OT - When I get home tonight ...

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

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.

Maybe so, maybe no. But you're crying before you're hurt. And
compared to what we have today, some version of universal health
care would be a great improvement.


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.

So when multiple polls show support for something that you
disagree with, the poll must be biased? Yeah, right.


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?

Once again, the CBO is deemed non partisan only if it agrees
with you. Of course, in your defense, you're not the only one
who does that - lots of folks in this group are uilty.


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).

LOL


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?

For some strange reason, Japan wasn't included on the web page
referenced below. But it does have universal health care, in
fact it's system is considered among the best. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_...ystem_in_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.

I definitely agree with you that we're broke. But it was 8 years
of Shrub that got us there.

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

On Mar 23, 11:32*am, Larry Blanchard wrote:
My news server was down yesterday so I had to copy krw'S post from
Google. *Unfortunately, that caused the loss of one level of , so I
indented my responses below. *Sorry 'bout that.

Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
From: "
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:24:28 -0500
Local: Sun, Mar 21 2010 4:24 pm
Subject: OT - When I get home tonight ...

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

* * * * Maybe so, maybe no. *But you're crying before you're hurt. *And
* * * * compared to what we have today, some version of universal health
* * * * care would be a great improvement.

Bull****. This bill has nothing to do with "health care" and
*everything* to do with control. If it were about "health care" for
30M (a phony number) people, it wouldn't need 2700 pages. It wouldn't
need 1600 new IRS agents. It wouldn't need all the new agencies. It
*is* about control of the economy. It *IS* unconstitutional.

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.

* * * * So when multiple polls show support for something that you
* * * * disagree with, the poll must be biased? *Yeah, right.

Nope. That's the way polls work. Sure, some will like aspects of
anything, when phrased one way and not so much when phrased another.
Some will like the idea of a free lunch, until they are told how much
that free lunch cost them. Yes, the polls were biased. They all
are. It's clear that the majority of the people don't like this bill
as it is.

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?

* * * * Once again, the CBO is deemed non partisan only if it agrees
* * * * with you. *Of course, in your defense, you're not the only one
* * * * who does that - lots of folks in this group are uilty.

Bull**** again. I said nothing about "partisan". Its "analysis", by
law, was simply a turn the crank spreadsheet crunching of the
assumptions fed in; garbage in - garbage out. The assumptions were
*garbage*. They always are. Look at the cost of any government
program vs. what was estimated. GIGO.


*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).

* * * * LOL

The truth isn't funny.

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?

* * * * For some strange reason, Japan wasn't included on the web page
* * * * referenced below. *But it does have universal health care, in
* * * * fact it's system is considered among the best. *See:

* * * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_...ystem_in_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.

* * * * I definitely agree with you that we're broke. *But it was 8 years
* * * * of Shrub that got us there.

You're full of bull**** today. Bush was an absolute piker compared to
Obama, Pelosi, and Reed.