On 7/2/2012 11:42 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:


The socialist elements have created an environment that promotes
"me"ism. Before the socialist programs, as a last resort each
individual knew that he HAD to depend on family and the people around
him. With the socialist programs this has changed, and now the last
resort is a government program.

I disagree Keith. And - I'm one who has no problem at all in blaming
socialists for a lot of ills. Socialism and "me"ism are at odds with each
other to a very large degree. I believe that the me-first attitude enabled
the onslaught of socialistic thinking.

As I read what you read, I believe our disagreement is a chicken and egg
issue of which came first? "me"ism caused socialist think OR socialist
thinking caused "me"ism.

On 7/2/2012 1:41 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 7/2/2012 11:42 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:


The socialist elements have created an environment that promotes
"me"ism. Before the socialist programs, as a last resort each
individual knew that he HAD to depend on family and the people around
him. With the socialist programs this has changed, and now the last
resort is a government program.

I disagree Keith. And - I'm one who has no problem at all in blaming
socialists for a lot of ills. Socialism and "me"ism are at odds with
each
other to a very large degree. I believe that the me-first attitude
enabled
the onslaught of socialistic thinking.

As I read what you read, I believe our disagreement is a chicken and
egg issue of which came first? "me"ism caused socialist think OR
socialist thinking caused "me"ism.



Socialism promotes and encourages "me" ism, but "me"ism is an integral
component of human nature.

On 7/2/2012 12:30 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:


This morning, my haircutter girl at the neighborhood new Great Clips
made a mistake in entering data into the cash register. Now she had
to pull out the calculator to subtract $7.01 from $14.00. I'm just
saying ...

Why did you have to go there Han? Now it's my turn... I bought something
at a local cash and carry type store. The total came to something like
$7.20. I gave the girl $20.20. Didn't even throw her a curve ball by
giving her a twenty and a quarter - straight up $20.20.

She screwed somethin up on her "think for me"-cash register and had to ask
another cashier for a calculator to figure out my change. I was so baffled,
I didn't even come up with a smart ass comment...

It hasn't gotten any better, and most certainly has gotten worse. Some
thirty years ago I bought something at a store, gave the young clerk a
twenty, and she looked at me very apologetically, as if to say "I'm
sorry, I don't know how to calculate your change." I had to coach her
through the process, and when done, she then did say "Sorry it took so
long." During the incident, I could sense that she was realizing that
either her schooling had failed her, or she had failed her schooling.
Never saw her again.

Matt

Just Wondering writes:
On 7/2/2012 1:41 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 7/2/2012 11:42 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:


The socialist elements have created an environment that promotes
"me"ism. Before the socialist programs, as a last resort each
individual knew that he HAD to depend on family and the people around
him. With the socialist programs this has changed, and now the last
resort is a government program.

I disagree Keith. And - I'm one who has no problem at all in blaming
socialists for a lot of ills. Socialism and "me"ism are at odds with
each
other to a very large degree. I believe that the me-first attitude
enabled
the onslaught of socialistic thinking.

As I read what you read, I believe our disagreement is a chicken and
egg issue of which came first? "me"ism caused socialist think OR
socialist thinking caused "me"ism.



Socialism promotes and encourages "me" ism, but "me"ism is an integral
component of human nature.


Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership
and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management
of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system.

There is not a single politician in the United States that advocates the
above, nor is social security, safety nets, welfare, common defense,
or medicare 'socialism' in any sense of the word.

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:01:26 -0600, Just Wondering
Actually, what they'd have to do is tell the truth about their financial
situation. There's no shame in being poor. Would you rather have them
lie about it?

Really? I wonder how you'd feel admitting to your friends that you
were poor? Shame, embarrassment, difficulty surviving with dignity?
However you want to describe it, I've never ever met anyone that liked
being poor.

Admitting you're poor to anyone is the unsaid suggestion that you
weren't smart enough to earn a decent living.

On 7/2/2012 4:48 PM, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:01:26 -0600, Just Wondering
Actually, what they'd have to do is tell the truth about their financial
situation. There's no shame in being poor. Would you rather have them
lie about it?
Really? I wonder how you'd feel admitting to your friends that you
were poor? Shame, embarrassment, difficulty surviving with dignity?
However you want to describe it, I've never ever met anyone that liked
being poor.

Admitting you're poor to anyone is the unsaid suggestion that you
weren't smart enough to earn a decent living.


Is not. It the unsaid statement that you're going through hard
financial times. There could be a hundred reasons why; lack of
intelligence is only one of them. Divorce is another, as is being laid
off from a financially troubled company through no fault of your own.

"Scott Lurndal" wrote:


Socialism is an economic system characterised by social
ownership
and/or control of the means of production and cooperative
management
of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a
system.

There is not a single politician in the United States that advocates
the
above, nor is social security, safety nets, welfare, common defense,
or medicare 'socialism' in any sense of the word.

-------------------------------------
Careful Scott, don't want to confuse those with preconceived views
with facts.G

Lew

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:b4b6a$4ff1ad15
:

Yeahbut social changes outside of the government are as responsible for
things as the government - or perhaps more so. People became more "me"
focused and less concerned for others around them. He who dies with the
most toys and all that crap.

Guy in our church has a bumper sticker that says "He who dies with the most toys -- DIES."

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 15:30:23 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Han wrote:


This morning, my haircutter girl at the neighborhood new Great Clips
made a mistake in entering data into the cash register. Now she had
to pull out the calculator to subtract $7.01 from $14.00. I'm just
saying ...

Why did you have to go there Han? Now it's my turn... I bought something
at a local cash and carry type store. The total came to something like
$7.20. I gave the girl $20.20. Didn't even throw her a curve ball by
giving her a twenty and a quarter - straight up $20.20.

She screwed somethin up on her "think for me"-cash register and had to ask
another cashier for a calculator to figure out my change. I was so baffled,
I didn't even come up with a smart ass comment...

Were from another era, I rattle their cages by usually telling them
the change owed before the cash register. They never learned to do it
in their head. I've held on to my slide ruler I'll be a genius if a
major solar storm wipes out the computers. LOL

Mike M

On 7/2/2012 10:13 PM, Mike M wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 15:30:23 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Han wrote:

This morning, my haircutter girl at the neighborhood new Great Clips
made a mistake in entering data into the cash register. Now she had
to pull out the calculator to subtract $7.01 from $14.00. I'm just
saying ...
Why did you have to go there Han? Now it's my turn... I bought something
at a local cash and carry type store. The total came to something like
$7.20. I gave the girl $20.20. Didn't even throw her a curve ball by
giving her a twenty and a quarter - straight up $20.20.

She screwed somethin up on her "think for me"-cash register and had to ask
another cashier for a calculator to figure out my change. I was so baffled,
I didn't even come up with a smart ass comment...
Were from another era, I rattle their cages by usually telling them
the change owed before the cash register. They never learned to do it
in their head. I've held on to my slide ruler I'll be a genius if a
major solar storm wipes out the computers. LOL

Mike M

You could power a scientific hand calculator with a couple of lemons.

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 18:42:56 -0600, Just Wondering
Admitting you're poor to anyone is the unsaid suggestion that you
weren't smart enough to earn a decent living.

Is not. It the unsaid statement that you're going through hard
financial times. There could be a hundred reasons why; lack of
intelligence is only one of them. Divorce is another, as is being laid
off from a financially troubled company through no fault of your own.

You're right, there could be hundreds of reasons why and a significant
portion of them can just as easily negative reasons.

It should be obvious just by reading some of the opinions voiced here
on this forum. Criticism of people without health insurance. Criticism
of people getting social assistance. Criticism of people just trying
to survive. No one first wonders why people got into that situation.
The first inclination is to think ill of someone.

You see a street person begging for money. No one first thinks they
may be there because they got laid off and their luck spiraled down
until they wound up on the street. Instead the average person just
wants them to be somewhere else, anywhere else except begging money
from them. That's reality.

If you believe the average person walking along the street seeing a
street person first thinks they may be there because they got laid
off, then you're completely deluded.

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 01:37:40 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
Guy in our church has a bumper sticker that says "He who dies with the most toys -- DIES."

Better bumper sticker. "He who does with the most toys, wins, but he's
DEAD ANYWAY!"

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 07:33:27 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Bob Martin wrote:
in 1531437 20120701 182850 "HeyBub" wrote:
steve robinson wrote:

Seems people are "forgetting" that there appear to be mechanisms to
get the poor subscribed without taxing them.

Its worked in the UK for years called national insurance

Giggle.

I wouldn't say "it works" in the UK. We frequently see reports on the
ghastly consequences, so much that physicians actually prescribe
water for their hospitalized patients so they won't die of
dehydration!

Here's the biggest difference: In the U.S., virtually all health care
providers have a financial incentive to keep their patients alive.
If alive, they live to be treated another day.

In the UK, if a patient lives or dies, it's no biggie - the doctor,
nurse, or hospital janitor gets paid the same. A recent report
claimed that upwards of 130,000 people die each year in the UK from
non-treatment or poor treatment.

US media propaganda.

Not US media at all. A cursory check, or neutral question, would have
prevented a knee-jerk reaction on your part.

"[LONDON, June 21, 2012] An eminent British doctor told a meeting of the
Royal Society of Medicine in London that every year 130,000 elderly patients
that die while under the care of the National Health Service (NHS) have been
effectively euthanized by being put on the controversial Liverpool Care
Pathway (LCP), a protocol for care of the terminally ill that he described
as a "death pathway."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/130...top-uk-doctor/

And from a UK newspaper:

"NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly
hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a
senior consultant claimed yesterday.

"[The Liverpool Care Pathway] is designed to come into force when doctors
believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent. It
can include withdrawal of treatment - including the provision of water and
nourishment by tube - and on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1zT2ujcKn

To my knowledge, we in the U.S. have nothing like a physician writing "LCP"
on the patient's chart. ("DNR" is a completely different critter.)

Maybe not exactly, but in practice.
During the recent passing of my wife, she was moved to comfort care which
involved no medical care other than I could request pain meds if needed,
no monitoring, no oxygen, no IV.

The physician didn't make this decision, it was offered as an an option
and I made the decision.

There was also a DNR issued, but it is a seperate concern than witholding
all treatment.

basilisk

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:59:01 -0600, Han wrote
(in article ):

Keith Nuttle wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 10:15 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 7/1/2012 8:27 AM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 02:43:29 -0600, Just Wondering
feds a penalty. SCOTUS has now upheld the penalty as a tax. For
people who don't already have insurance because they can't afford
it, it amounts to a tax on the poor for being poor. Nice going,
Barack Hussein.

And what did the poor do for health care before? The answer is that
they would be forced to go on Medicaid. And, being forced to go on
Medicaid meant that they had to declare themselves and in effect be
completely indigent.

Tax on the poor versus being completely indigent. That's some
choice!

Before the government got involved the family with the help of the
community handle problems where the family could not afford health
care.

Yeahbut social changes outside of the government are as responsible
for things as the government - or perhaps more so. People became
more "me" focused and less concerned for others around them. He who
dies with the most toys and all that crap. Attitudes like that
created competitive social environments as opposed to cooperative
social environments. The government had nothing to do with that.
Look right around your own surroundings to see that in action even
today. Maybe not the "most toys" thing, but certainly the distance
that has grown between memebers of a community. Today people are
proud of themselves for donating a few bucks to a cause. Doesn't
usually go any further than that.

The socialist elements have created an environment that promotes
"me"ism. Before the socialist programs, as a last resort each
individual knew that he HAD to depend on family and the people around
him. With the socialist programs this has changed, and now the last
resort is a government program.

This isn't a socialist or capitalist concept. In the stone ages, the
tribe was the insurance for the individual's well-being. If there was a
use for the sick, old or infirm, they'd keep them alive. If the
individual was a drag on society, I have been told the Eskimo would go
outside and freeze. In modern society, insurance has been invented to
help in case of rare occurances (sp?) where the individual might not have
the resources to correct what has gone wrong.

The true problem is that if you get sick or have an accident, we as
society have ordained that caring for that individual is paramount, and
worrying about the costs secondary. That is very well and altruistic,
but it leaves out the problem when there is no money available to pay for
that care. Currently, there is a surcharge for hospital costs to help
pay for those indigent. If you will, a tax or penalty on people with the
foresight to have insurance, or able to pay without, so that the indigent
can be cared for. I like the proposed system where everyone is urged to
be responsible and get insurance much better.


I agree with an earlier poster that it is basically bookkeeping, we pay no
matter what (more taxes or higher premiums).
What really bugs me is calling all this crap 'insurance'. Insurance is
coverage for unexpected events (i.e. flood insurance, auto comprehensive,
etc.). No auto policy will cover oil changes and tune ups for free (like the
assortment of no-copay things in the AHA). Auto insurance also won't cover
(or at least charge a much higher premium) for drivers who have a terrible
driving record. Also, can anyone name an auto insurance that will accept
previous damage, i.e I'm uninsured and get into a wreck, then buy a policy
and get the damages paid for)?

How about making health insurance more like auto insurance. I choose the
coverage I want (I don't opt for the free birth control and breast
reconstruction coverage, thank you), and I can shop around. Can anybody name
a health insurance company with better customer service than an auto
insurance company?

If the government wants to meddle, they can subsidize some of the routine
stuff (mammograms, vaccines, etc.) directly to the doctors.
In God we trust, all others pay cash.

-BR

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 18:42:56 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

On 7/2/2012 4:48 PM, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:01:26 -0600, Just Wondering
Actually, what they'd have to do is tell the truth about their financial
situation. There's no shame in being poor. Would you rather have them
lie about it?
Really? I wonder how you'd feel admitting to your friends that you
were poor? Shame, embarrassment, difficulty surviving with dignity?
However you want to describe it, I've never ever met anyone that liked
being poor.

Admitting you're poor to anyone is the unsaid suggestion that you
weren't smart enough to earn a decent living.


Is not. It the unsaid statement that you're going through hard
financial times. There could be a hundred reasons why; lack of
intelligence is only one of them. Divorce is another, as is being laid
off from a financially troubled company through no fault of your own.

It's usually because you've not planned ahead, whether it be not planning for
a decent job, spending every dime you've ever made, or even putting all your
eggs in one basket. "No fault of your own" is, in the vast majority of cases,
a lie.

basilisk wrote in
:

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 07:33:27 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Bob Martin wrote:
in 1531437 20120701 182850 "HeyBub" wrote:
steve robinson wrote:

Seems people are "forgetting" that there appear to be mechanisms
to get the poor subscribed without taxing them.

Its worked in the UK for years called national insurance

Giggle.

I wouldn't say "it works" in the UK. We frequently see reports on
the ghastly consequences, so much that physicians actually
prescribe water for their hospitalized patients so they won't die
of dehydration!

Here's the biggest difference: In the U.S., virtually all health
care providers have a financial incentive to keep their patients
alive. If alive, they live to be treated another day.

In the UK, if a patient lives or dies, it's no biggie - the doctor,
nurse, or hospital janitor gets paid the same. A recent report
claimed that upwards of 130,000 people die each year in the UK from
non-treatment or poor treatment.

US media propaganda.

Not US media at all. A cursory check, or neutral question, would have
prevented a knee-jerk reaction on your part.

"[LONDON, June 21, 2012] An eminent British doctor told a meeting of
the Royal Society of Medicine in London that every year 130,000
elderly patients that die while under the care of the National Health
Service (NHS) have been effectively euthanized by being put on the
controversial Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), a protocol for care of
the terminally ill that he described as a "death pathway."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/130...s-killed-every
-year-by-death-pathway-top-uk-doctor/

And from a UK newspaper:

"NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly
hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up
beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday.

"[The Liverpool Care Pathway] is designed to come into force when
doctors believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death
is imminent. It can include withdrawal of treatment - including the
provision of water and nourishment by tube - and on average brings a
patient to death in 33 hours."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ors-chilling-c
laim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html#ixzz1zT2ujcKn

To my knowledge, we in the U.S. have nothing like a physician writing
"LCP" on the patient's chart. ("DNR" is a completely different
critter.)

Maybe not exactly, but in practice.
During the recent passing of my wife, she was moved to comfort care
which involved no medical care other than I could request pain meds
if needed, no monitoring, no oxygen, no IV.

The physician didn't make this decision, it was offered as an an
option and I made the decision.

There was also a DNR issued, but it is a seperate concern than
witholding all treatment.

basilisk

Sorry to hear about your wife passing. These aren't easy things and
times, but I think that if prospects for a good life are diminishing,
thought needds to be given to what you call comfort care - a good phrase,
because comfort is what's needed for all concerned.
Good thoughts going your way ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Bruce wrote in :

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:59:01 -0600, Han wrote
(in article ):

Keith Nuttle wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 10:15 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 7/1/2012 8:27 AM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 02:43:29 -0600, Just Wondering
feds a penalty. SCOTUS has now upheld the penalty as a tax.
For people who don't already have insurance because they can't
afford it, it amounts to a tax on the poor for being poor. Nice
going, Barack Hussein.

And what did the poor do for health care before? The answer is
that they would be forced to go on Medicaid. And, being forced to
go on Medicaid meant that they had to declare themselves and in
effect be completely indigent.

Tax on the poor versus being completely indigent. That's some
choice!

Before the government got involved the family with the help of the
community handle problems where the family could not afford health
care.

Yeahbut social changes outside of the government are as responsible
for things as the government - or perhaps more so. People became
more "me" focused and less concerned for others around them. He
who dies with the most toys and all that crap. Attitudes like that
created competitive social environments as opposed to cooperative
social environments. The government had nothing to do with that.
Look right around your own surroundings to see that in action even
today. Maybe not the "most toys" thing, but certainly the distance
that has grown between memebers of a community. Today people are
proud of themselves for donating a few bucks to a cause. Doesn't
usually go any further than that.

The socialist elements have created an environment that promotes
"me"ism. Before the socialist programs, as a last resort each
individual knew that he HAD to depend on family and the people
around him. With the socialist programs this has changed, and now
the last resort is a government program.

This isn't a socialist or capitalist concept. In the stone ages, the
tribe was the insurance for the individual's well-being. If there
was a use for the sick, old or infirm, they'd keep them alive. If
the individual was a drag on society, I have been told the Eskimo
would go outside and freeze. In modern society, insurance has been
invented to help in case of rare occurances (sp?) where the
individual might not have the resources to correct what has gone
wrong.

The true problem is that if you get sick or have an accident, we as
society have ordained that caring for that individual is paramount,
and worrying about the costs secondary. That is very well and
altruistic, but it leaves out the problem when there is no money
available to pay for that care. Currently, there is a surcharge for
hospital costs to help pay for those indigent. If you will, a tax or
penalty on people with the foresight to have insurance, or able to
pay without, so that the indigent can be cared for. I like the
proposed system where everyone is urged to be responsible and get
insurance much better.


I agree with an earlier poster that it is basically bookkeeping, we
pay no matter what (more taxes or higher premiums).
What really bugs me is calling all this crap 'insurance'. Insurance is
coverage for unexpected events (i.e. flood insurance, auto
comprehensive, etc.). No auto policy will cover oil changes and tune
ups for free (like the assortment of no-copay things in the AHA). Auto
insurance also won't cover (or at least charge a much higher premium)
for drivers who have a terrible driving record. Also, can anyone name
an auto insurance that will accept previous damage, i.e I'm uninsured
and get into a wreck, then buy a policy and get the damages paid for)?

How about making health insurance more like auto insurance. I choose
the coverage I want (I don't opt for the free birth control and breast
reconstruction coverage, thank you), and I can shop around. Can
anybody name a health insurance company with better customer service
than an auto insurance company?

If the government wants to meddle, they can subsidize some of the
routine stuff (mammograms, vaccines, etc.) directly to the doctors.
In God we trust, all others pay cash.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The copays are comparable to
paying for the oil change, while car or health insurance is for
accidents. However, it easily gets more complicated. Now when you buy a
car, there sometimes is free maintenance for x months. That would be
comparable to free checkups, inoculations, and, yes, free birth control
(getting an unplanned baby is much more expensive for parents and society
than a few free pills).

I have also said that compulsory health insurance should be some form of
basic coverage, and plans to add other stuff to be covered should be
standardized and available. Seems some of that exists for Medicare plans
and the much ballyhooed supplementals. If all that can be standardized
across the country, then things become much more easily comparable.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/3/2012 9:03 AM, basilisk wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 07:33:27 -0500, HeyBub wrote:


To my knowledge, we in the U.S. have nothing like a physician writing "LCP"
on the patient's chart. ("DNR" is a completely different critter.)

Maybe not exactly, but in practice.
During the recent passing of my wife, she was moved to comfort care which
involved no medical care other than I could request pain meds if needed,
no monitoring, no oxygen, no IV.

The physician didn't make this decision, it was offered as an an option
and I made the decision.

Agreed ... it is tacit instead of written in many cases. Mom died on
June 21, 2012, in a nursing home, but basically in a hospice
environment, with no physician intervention for the three weeks
preceding her passing. Considering a prolonged illness with no hope of
recovery, it was as it should be.

While I do have a DNR, I could only hope (but knowing it would be
horrific to put someone in that position) that someone I know had the
training, and fortitude, to practice the merciful wielding of a pillow
in a similar circumstance.

I keep thinking of that Indian chief in that movie Little Big Man(?),
where he just went off to die in the forest.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 10:12:43 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 7/3/2012 9:03 AM, basilisk wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 07:33:27 -0500, HeyBub wrote:


To my knowledge, we in the U.S. have nothing like a physician writing "LCP"
on the patient's chart. ("DNR" is a completely different critter.)

Maybe not exactly, but in practice.
During the recent passing of my wife, she was moved to comfort care which
involved no medical care other than I could request pain meds if needed,
no monitoring, no oxygen, no IV.

The physician didn't make this decision, it was offered as an an option
and I made the decision.

Sorry to hear about your Mom, and for you and your families loss.

Agreed ... it is tacit instead of written in many cases. Mom died on
June 21, 2012, in a nursing home, but basically in a hospice
environment, with no physician intervention for the three weeks
preceding her passing. Considering a prolonged illness with no hope of
recovery, it was as it should be.

There is peace of heart in this statement.

While I do have a DNR, I could only hope (but knowing it would be
horrific to put someone in that position) that someone I know had the
training, and fortitude, to practice the merciful wielding of a pillow
in a similar circumstance.

Seems that sometimes life goes on long after the ability to live,
may we both be so lucky as to have a friend with a pillow, should the
need arise.

I keep thinking of that Indian chief in that movie Little Big Man(?),
where he just went off to die in the forest.

Sigh, my daughters will never stand for it, I'm already getting sermons
about what I should and should not be doing.

basilisk

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 9:03 AM, basilisk wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 07:33:27 -0500, HeyBub wrote:


To my knowledge, we in the U.S. have nothing like a physician
writing "LCP" on the patient's chart. ("DNR" is a completely
different critter.)

Maybe not exactly, but in practice.
During the recent passing of my wife, she was moved to comfort care
which involved no medical care other than I could request pain meds
if needed, no monitoring, no oxygen, no IV.

The physician didn't make this decision, it was offered as an an
option and I made the decision.

Agreed ... it is tacit instead of written in many cases. Mom died on
June 21, 2012, in a nursing home, but basically in a hospice
environment, with no physician intervention for the three weeks
preceding her passing. Considering a prolonged illness with no hope of
recovery, it was as it should be.

While I do have a DNR, I could only hope (but knowing it would be
horrific to put someone in that position) that someone I know had the
training, and fortitude, to practice the merciful wielding of a pillow
in a similar circumstance.

I keep thinking of that Indian chief in that movie Little Big Man(?),
where he just went off to die in the forest.

My sister in law (wife's brother's wife) recently passed after a fairly
short illness, in Holland. Stomach cancer, diagnosed mid-January, passed
May 1. First chemo to shrink the tumor, but that didn't really work.
Then an operation as a last resort. Open and close, nothing could be
done. Thereafter, palliative care (comfort care), at home, with lots of
friends (nurses) and family around. Daily visits of house doctor, every
4 hours nursing care to turn the patient over. In the end she chose
getting sleep medication and morphine while withholding sustenance and
fluids over more active end of life medication (Holland). We were there
from right after she was made to sleep till the end 6 days later. While
in a sense this passing was honorable and beautiful (can't find the right
word anymore), it was also terrifying to be so helpless.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:03:49 -0500, basilisk wrote:

During the recent passing of my wife, she was moved to comfort care
which involved no medical care other than I could request pain meds if
needed, no monitoring, no oxygen, no IV.

The physician didn't make this decision, it was offered as an an option
and I made the decision.

Sorry to hear of your wife's death. But your way makes a lot more sense
than having someone spend their last days being wheeled from one painful
treatment to another.

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

Dave wrote:

It should be obvious just by reading some of the opinions voiced here
on this forum. Criticism of people without health insurance. Criticism
of people getting social assistance. Criticism of people just trying
to survive. No one first wonders why people got into that situation.
The first inclination is to think ill of someone.

Ya know - when I first read this I was going to reply that it was pure
bull****, and then I finished reading the first paragraph. The very last
sentence is the one that really caught my attention. It really encapsulates
so much of what goes on here. Too many pseudo-experts, to many hairy
chested opinions, too many thoughts that simply attempt to deride others.
Ok - I realize that I'm getting too warm and fuzzy for a conservative, but
Dave is onto something here...


You see a street person begging for money. No one first thinks they
may be there because they got laid off and their luck spiraled down
until they wound up on the street. Instead the average person just
wants them to be somewhere else, anywhere else except begging money
from them. That's reality.

And then of course, there is the ever-present commentary from those who have
not YET been subjected to those very circumstances, which pride themselves
on babbling on about how they would never be caught in such a dilema.


If you believe the average person walking along the street seeing a
street person first thinks they may be there because they got laid
off, then you're completely deluded.

I have to admit that I do not. To a very large degree, most street people
are not there for that reason. The ones that are, are an insignificant
minority - BUT, your point still stands. Our current economy is turning out
families and people that are more like those of the 30's than ever before.
It's way to easy to sit back and talk about how others get into situations,
until your own sorry ass finds itself on the street one day. Way too many
people who have been very successful in their careers are now among the
ranks of the insufficiently funded (how's that for a new term?...), for the
proud wisdom of the internet to have any real meaning.

--

-Mike-

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:12:15 +0000, Han wrote:

Seems some of that exists for Medicare plans and the much ballyhooed
supplementals. If all that can be standardized across the country, then
things become much more easily comparable.

I've suggested all along to gradually expand Medicare till it covers
everyone. But there wasn't a chance in hell of getting that past all the
special interests and through congress.

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

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 10:51:27 -0400, "
It's usually because you've not planned ahead, whether it be not planning for
a decent job, spending every dime you've ever made, or even putting all your
eggs in one basket. "No fault of your own" is, in the vast majority of cases,
a lie.

+1

Yes, I agree with you (for once).

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:04:45 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 10:51:27 -0400, "
It's usually because you've not planned ahead, whether it be not planning for
a decent job, spending every dime you've ever made, or even putting all your
eggs in one basket. "No fault of your own" is, in the vast majority of cases,
a lie.

+1

Yes, I agree with you (for once).

I guess, then, where we disagree is that I don't believe it's my problem that
you haven't planned. IOW, why should I pay for your mistakes?

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:19:17 -0400, "
I guess, then, where we disagree is that I don't believe it's my problem that
you haven't planned. IOW, why should I pay for your mistakes?

I don't think the disagreement between us is that you should pay for
my mistakes. It's how do you decide whether it really is my mistake
and what do we (or I) do about it? Nobody is perfect, not you or I and
most everybody makes a mistake now and then. Should everybody have to
pay for it? Sorry, but it's just too literal.

On top of that, just cutting off all those people who did make a
mistake can eventually turn into a human catastrophe of immense
proportions.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:30:21 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:19:17 -0400, "
I guess, then, where we disagree is that I don't believe it's my problem that
you haven't planned. IOW, why should I pay for your mistakes?

I don't think the disagreement between us is that you should pay for
my mistakes. It's how do you decide whether it really is my mistake
and what do we (or I) do about it? Nobody is perfect, not you or I and
most everybody makes a mistake now and then. Should everybody have to
pay for it? Sorry, but it's just too literal.

You've already agreed that the vast majority of "the poor" are poor because of
poor choices. Let them sink.

On top of that, just cutting off all those people who did make a
mistake can eventually turn into a human catastrophe of immense
proportions.

....and perhaps convince others to wise up. Maybe you think it a better idea
to just give them your money. Go ahead, it's your money.

basilisk wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 07:33:27 -0500, HeyBub wrote:



To my knowledge, we in the U.S. have nothing like a physician
writing "LCP" on the patient's chart. ("DNR" is a completely
different critter.)

Maybe not exactly, but in practice.
During the recent passing of my wife, she was moved to comfort care
which involved no medical care other than I could request pain meds
if needed, no monitoring, no oxygen, no IV.

The physician didn't make this decision, it was offered as an an
option and I made the decision.

There was also a DNR issued, but it is a seperate concern than
witholding all treatment.

basilisk

With all due respect to the loss of your wife - and that is not a token
statement, what you experienced is not relevant to the previous point.
Condolences to your experience.

--

-Mike-

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:12:15 +0000, Han wrote:

Seems some of that exists for Medicare plans and the much ballyhooed
supplementals. If all that can be standardized across the country,
then things become much more easily comparable.

I've suggested all along to gradually expand Medicare till it covers
everyone. But there wasn't a chance in hell of getting that past all
the special interests and through congress.

I'd agree with the concept, but I have to ask what all of the special
interests are that you refer to?

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" writes:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:12:15 +0000, Han wrote:

Seems some of that exists for Medicare plans and the much ballyhooed
supplementals. If all that can be standardized across the country,
then things become much more easily comparable.

I've suggested all along to gradually expand Medicare till it covers
everyone. But there wasn't a chance in hell of getting that past all
the special interests and through congress.

I'd agree with the concept, but I have to ask what all of the special
interests are that you refer to?

UHC, Aetna, Blue Shield, et. al. etc. u.s.w.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:38:53 -0400, "
You've already agreed that the vast majority of "the poor" are poor because of
poor choices. Let them sink.

If you're serious with that statement, then it's one of the main
reasons why you and me are constantly butting heads.

I could appropriately swear at you at this point, but I suspect you
might just be trying for a reaction.

Morally, there's a big difference between someone who makes an honest
mistake and has to pay for it and someone who does something really
stupid and has to pay for it.

I really have to wonder how you would react if you made some
relatively dumb mistake and it cost you everything. You wouldn't have
the mentality to survive it.

On 03 Jul 2012 19:15:08 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


snip

There is somewhat of an analogy. In some areas, fire protection is
by subscription. Sometimes, people with little means cannot afford
$50/year (or whatever) to pay. Then, when their trailer catches
fire, the fire truck comes and stands by to protect people next door
who did pay, and watch the trailer burn out.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Please post a credible reference to this sort
of thing. And please - do not post a link to a friend of a neighbor's
girlfriend's live-in boyfriend's web site.

Sorry, I was off, it was $75. Just google for this:
"fire truck stands by as trailer burns"
The first link is
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/it-h...ters-let-home-
burn-after-owners-didnt-pay-75-protection-fee/

Do you really believe that "didn't" is the same as "can't afford to"? $75 per
*year*? GMAFB

On 03 Jul 2012 18:27:35 GMT, (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

"Mike Marlow" writes:
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:12:15 +0000, Han wrote:

Seems some of that exists for Medicare plans and the much ballyhooed
supplementals. If all that can be standardized across the country,
then things become much more easily comparable.

I've suggested all along to gradually expand Medicare till it covers
everyone. But there wasn't a chance in hell of getting that past all
the special interests and through congress.

I'd agree with the concept, but I have to ask what all of the special
interests are that you refer to?

UHC, Aetna, Blue Shield, et. al. etc. u.s.w.

AARP

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:54:24 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:38:53 -0400, "
You've already agreed that the vast majority of "the poor" are poor because of
poor choices. Let them sink.

If you're serious with that statement, then it's one of the main
reasons why you and me are constantly butting heads.

Of *course* I'm serious. If people make bad choices, why should I constantly
bail them out? You act like Greece and wonder why I act like Germany?

I could appropriately swear at you at this point, but I suspect you
might just be trying for a reaction.

Go right ahead.

Morally, there's a big difference between someone who makes an honest
mistake and has to pay for it and someone who does something really
stupid and has to pay for it.

What is your "honest mistake"? Forgetting to go to high school? Getting
their 17YO girlfriend pregnant? Not bothering to get and keep a job? Drugs?

I really have to wonder how you would react if you made some
relatively dumb mistake and it cost you everything. You wouldn't have
the mentality to survive it.

You're an idiot. We already agreed that they made poor choices (plural). You
really are another Greece.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 16:28:09 -0400, "
You're an idiot. We already agreed that they made poor choices (plural). You
really are another Greece.

You just don't get it do you? I'm not talking about austerity measures
or whether or not to implement them. I'm talking about survival and
society.

If everybody paid literally for every mistake, there wouldn't be any
society to speak of and we'd all still be living in the stone age.
Society and all it's accomplishments are the result of people working
together for good and dealing with the bad.

Your way is the might makes right and only the strongest survive, be
it money or anything else. People like you would be erased by someone
else who was stronger, richer or who just happened to be luckier.

I can't believe it. You really, really are an asshole. It always
shocks me when I come across someone who really deserves to be shot
and ****ed on. That's you without any doubt at all.

We're done. I'm finished trying to make sense to you. You're too much
of an asshole to know any better.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 16:49:14 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 16:28:09 -0400, "
You're an idiot. We already agreed that they made poor choices (plural). You
really are another Greece.

You just don't get it do you? I'm not talking about austerity measures
or whether or not to implement them. I'm talking about survival and
society.

You think the issue in Greece isn't an issue of survival?

If everybody paid literally for every mistake, there wouldn't be any
society to speak of and we'd all still be living in the stone age.
Society and all it's accomplishments are the result of people working
together for good and dealing with the bad.

Utter nonsense. We generally do pay for every mistake but some aren't as
expensive as others. The idea is to make more good decisions than bad. This
doesn't happen if mommy is there to fix our every booboo. We do learn from
pain.

Your way is the might makes right and only the strongest survive, be
it money or anything else. People like you would be erased by someone
else who was stronger, richer or who just happened to be luckier.

Only the smart survive. The problem with the left is that you want to keep
everyone dumb.

I can't believe it. You really, really are an asshole. It always
shocks me when I come across someone who really deserves to be shot
and ****ed on. That's you without any doubt at all.

Wow! I'm constantly impressed with the compassion and intelligence of the
left.

We're done. I'm finished trying to make sense to you. You're too much
of an asshole to know any better.

Of course you are. Stick your fingers in your ears and hum, loudly. You
won't hear anything that might make you think.

On Jul 3, 5:02*pm, "
wrote:

Wow! I'm constantly impressed with the compassion and intelligence of the
left.

The Christian Right has an exclusive on compassion. So they claim.

Intelligence, however, seems a bit harder to come by for the Religious
Right. It seems that the way to go to bat for God and Country is to
demolish those who even dare to ask questions.

If I find you thirsty, I will give you a drink from my water.
If you find me thirsty, don't try to sell me polluted water.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:16:49 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

I've suggested all along to gradually expand Medicare till it covers
everyone. But there wasn't a chance in hell of getting that past all
the special interests and through congress.

I'd agree with the concept, but I have to ask what all of the special
interests are that you refer to?

Just about anyone who makes a living from exorbitantly priced supplies,
pills, procedures, insurance policies, etc.. And let us never forget the
ambulance chasers and all the hospitals being converted from non-profit
to for-profit.

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

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:38:53 -0400, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

You've already agreed that the vast majority of "the poor" are poor
because of poor choices. Let them sink.

Let them eat cake!

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

" wrote in
:

On 03 Jul 2012 19:15:08 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


snip

There is somewhat of an analogy. In some areas, fire protection is
by subscription. Sometimes, people with little means cannot afford
$50/year (or whatever) to pay. Then, when their trailer catches
fire, the fire truck comes and stands by to protect people next
door who did pay, and watch the trailer burn out.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Please post a credible reference to this
sort of thing. And please - do not post a link to a friend of a
neighbor's girlfriend's live-in boyfriend's web site.

Sorry, I was off, it was $75. Just google for this:
"fire truck stands by as trailer burns"
The first link is
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/it-h...ghters-let-hom
e- burn-after-owners-didnt-pay-75-protection-fee/

Do you really believe that "didn't" is the same as "can't afford to"?
$75 per *year*? GMAFB

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I can believe that a poor
family didn't have the $75 to pay the fee when it became due, and then
forgot to put it on a priority list to pay. I'm NOT saying these people
were smart, but perhaos they did outsmart themselves.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid