A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 16 May 2007 10:49:09
From: don Gabacho
Subject: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

Yup, it was a beut!

Riding along on a sidewalk while carrying a ton of groceries in my
rear baskets, I spotted a brand-new computer and a power pack set
alongside a dumpster for the taking.

I stopped my bike, leaned over, grabbed the the battery pack's cable
and heaved its weight up. It was worth 350 bucks as I considered just
dumping the groceries to make room.

But, alas, the front wheel had been turned sideways. Just as I got the
50lb component on the crossbar the wheel decided to suddenly roll.

With the weight of the bike itself plus the groceries pushing and the
weight of the component pulling, I was slapped down so hard on the
pavement to break my collar-bone.

Lesson 1: Never reach for or pickup anything while still astride a
bicycle. Always get off the bike first.

Lesson 2: The medical costs! Nearly $3,000 including one charge equal
to over $225/minute by an orthepedist who had not only done nothing
(not even x-rays) but, when asked to instruct on just how to fasten
the second strap of a simple sling, responded "I don't know."

Yup: "A hard lesson(s) learned.

Isn't Bush's health care plan wonderful?

Date: 29 May 2007 20:25:08
From: datakoll@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

try

http://www.exrx.net/Exercise.html

Date: 18 May 2007 13:30:07
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 18, 10:20 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message denews:1179518840.962859.77330@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.c=
om,
> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> a r=E9fl=E9ch=
i, et
> puis a d=E9clar=E9 :
>
> > On May 18, 7:33 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
> >> BTW, is your ex-pat deal on a par with local deals ? Why do I think
> >> it's not ? Hmmmm
>
> > I don't really understand what you mean. As far as I know the only
> > difference for me here in Norway (as a foreigner) is that I am not
> > allowed to vote. Otherwise I pay the same taxes, and I get the same
> > benefits.
>
> You don't have supplemental medical care insurance company paid ? Medevac
> insurance to your home country ? Home leave ? NET/NET income targets ?
> Tax equalization ? Homeland social security supplemental contributions ?
>
> If the answer is no, then you are amongst the few working poor expats, or
> you didn't get much advice in negotiating your contract.

No, I went native. I have been self employed, and locally employed,
definitely on the lower end of the scale.

> Actually, I think you got a deal to have a 30-bike garage and the resourc=
es
> to fill it up. Now that would have been a master stroke.

I wish! I only have 5 bikes clogging up the shed and my wife is not
happy about that. She wants to put some beds in there to rent it out
to tourists in the summer!

Joseph

Date: 18 May 2007 13:19:57
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 18, 7:38 pm, "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote:
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179507604.012405.205600@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 18, 6:45 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dans le message
> > denews:1179505524.969749.251880@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
> > joseph.santanie...@gmail.com <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> a r=E9fl=E9=
chi, et
> > puis a d=E9clar=E9 :
>
> > > The thing is that with private insurance, you can chose your level of
> > > coverage, and otherwise shop around for coverage that suits your
> > > needs, while state-run insurance is suposed to be one size fits all.
>
> > No. With national health care, you can still buy fancy medicine. Fran=
ce
> > has it, most certainly. And the national system provides full care. S=
o,
> > where's the objection ?
>
> > > The government choses what level of care you need, and what are
> > > approved treatments and you have no options. You pay for it even if
> > > you decide to buy your care elsewhere.
>
> > Well, if you are American (I am guessing) you also pay taxes to drop bo=
mbs
> > on Iraq, even if that's not your personal choice. Taxes pay for that
> > policy
> > decision, too.
>
> > >>> I'm all for a system that gets people covered who want and need
> > >>> insurance, but doing that at the expense of providing a system that
> > >>> covers everyone is not a good idea, IMO.
>
> > >> That is completely contradictory. Or do you have some Darwinian
> > >> system in mind to solve overpopulation in developed countries ?
>
> > > I was thinking specifically about a system for the US, which does not
> > > have an overpopulation problem. I don't think it is contradictory.
> > > Basically I'm saying a state-run mandatory insurance designed for
> > > everyone will provide needed acceptable levels of coverage for those
> > > who don't currently have it, but will provide worse levels of service
> > > for those that are currently doing just fine.
>
> > No one is forced to get worse than basic coverage, and getting better t=
han
> > average coverage remains elective for payment. You want to enable peop=
le
> > to
> > pay for what they want - again, where's the problem ?
>
> The problem is that the price of the compulsory basic coverage baloons
> to be more than the price of what was above average coverage, and to
> get good coverage you have to spend even more. Sure it works, but it's
> wasteful and unecessary. In France how much of your tax money do you
> supose goes toward funding this basic national coverage? And how much
> do you have to pay for some private insurance on top of that to ensure
> you have whatever care you want? Sure it's nice because people who
> otherwise would have no coverage do have it, but at what cost? I'm all
> for getting coverage for those people, but it would be nice to not
> have to be so wasteful doing it.
>
> I don't mind paying taxes for things that are for the public good but
> do not affect me personally (like welfare, orphanages, jails,
> whatever) but I don't want to pay for things that are supposed to be
> for me but I don't use because they are not good enough (schools,
> medical insurance, etc).
>
> Joseph, who is your insurer? All I know is that I pay huge amounts of mo=
ney
> for medical insurance (I am self employed and actually pay premium), and I
> get shit managed care. It could not possibly be any worse off under a
> socialized medical program unless I were living in a third world country.=
My
> personal monthly premium is about $450 (including very sparse dental). A=
dd
> another premium for my son, and one for my wife -- and guess what, that's
> $1,350 A MONTH. This does not include the HUGE deductible, co-pay,
> non-covered therapies, etc. The government would have to tax the living
> daylights out of me to make me pay more than that for socialized medicine.
> Luckily, my wife's premium is now a lot lower under a Medicare Advantage
> program.

Last time I lived in the US I paid premium as well as I was self
employed. That was 5 years ago and for me, my wife, and our at the
time 2 kids I recall it was about $800. I live in Norway now where
health care is free (after you wait for it) but my taxes are way more
that $800 per month more than they were in the US on a comparable
income. And as Sandy has pointed out my taxes in the US went to pay
for all manner of other very expensive things that are not on the menu
here in Norway.

> My wife is on Medicare due to a disability (she has a Parkinson's-like
> condition). She has stimulators in her brain that are fed by transmitters
> that have to be changed every three years at a price of about $50K. Her
> Medicare Advantage plan (which is somewhat of a scam in itself) covers mo=
st
> of that and has better coverage than my private medical plan -- except for
> the drug benefit, which only matters if you spend more than $2,500 on dru=
gs
> a year. The US is going to have to get its shit together real fast and co=
me
> up with a sustainable socialized medical program (or some other fix -- the
> market is not doing it) because a lot of ordinary working people will not=
be
> able to keep up with the cost of medical care or the cost of health
> insurance, and more and more employers will simply quit offering health
> insurance. -- Jay Beattie.

Yes, something needs to be done, the big question is what. I don't
pretend to know the answer to that. I just would like to warn people
that creating a nationalized health service will not necessarily help
things. I think a combination of wishful thinking and the grass-is-
always-greener mentality is leading people to think that the situation
is so much better elsewhere and that all that needs to be done is copy
systems aready in use, while the reality of the situation is much more
complicated, particularly if the aim is to have a system the works
WELL.

Joseph

Date: 18 May 2007 13:07:21
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 18, 7:33 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message denews:1179507604.012405.205600@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.=
com,
> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> a r=E9fl=E9ch=
i, et
> puis a d=E9clar=E9 :
>
>
>
> > The problem is that the price of the compulsory basic coverage baloons
> > to be more than the price of what was above average coverage, and to
> > get good coverage you have to spend even more. Sure it works, but it's
> > wasteful and unecessary. In France how much of your tax money do you
> > supose goes toward funding this basic national coverage? And how much
> > do you have to pay for some private insurance on top of that to ensure
> > you have whatever care you want? Sure it's nice because people who
> > otherwise would have no coverage do have it, but at what cost? I'm all
> > for getting coverage for those people, but it would be nice to not
> > have to be so wasteful doing it.
>
> ?????????
> In France, all monies paid into the medical care system are dispensed wit=
hin
> that system. It is not touchable as is the Social Security system in the
> USA. Whatever we pay, at whatever level of contribution, goes to this
> single purpose. In its own way, it is _not_ a tax, although it is
> compulsory.

Any cumpulsory money gathered by the government is a tax. It's nice
that the money is not available to the rest of the government to wate
on other things, but this does not gaurantee the efficiency of the
system.

> For most people who use it, the bulk of regular care is paid for. Where =
the
> trick comes in, in France, is that when a provider charges /more/ than the
> standard rates, his own absolute reimbursement is /lower/. It discourages
> excessive costs. France also prescribes too many drugs, and the system is
> now geared to identifying them, and reducing the benefit rates.
>
> As most care provided is reimbursed at around 70%, and as the relative co=
sts
> of care are lower, the premiums necessary to support secondary, private
> insurance are very low, and there is great competition for these premiums.

I am not familiar with the system obviously, but it sounds like it is
on the right track. My compalint is with the way things like "standard
rates" are set by bureaucrats and the rules about how they are
reimbursed are made by polititions, and these things can have a huge
effect on what sort of treatments are available. Bad descisions here
can thus effect everyone. With private insurance and HMO's and all
that, at least the dangers of bad descisions are spread around a bit.

> > I don't mind paying taxes for things that are for the public good but
> > do not affect me personally (like welfare, orphanages, jails,
> > whatever) but I don't want to pay for things that are supposed to be
> > for me but I don't use because they are not good enough (schools,
> > medical insurance, etc).
>
> Evidently, you still are happy paying for bombs, for electronic spying on
> citizens, just cause you are a Good Joe. It's nice you don't begrudge
> widows and orphans - cancel that, it's just orphans - their meagre
> subsistance. So nice I may weep all night. Thanks. I was losing faith =
in
> your generosity.

My list was not exhaustive. By the way I am sure 100% that I have
given more money (actual and as a percent of what I had at the time)
to charities and people on the street who appeared to need it. My
generosity is sound. I specifically didn't comment on the bit about
bombs because the use of bombs is a transient thing that depends on
the administration in charge. If people don't want it that way, they
vote for someone else and the situation changes. Creating something
like a national health service lasts much longer than any one
administration. It's a different sort of issue.

> BTW, is your ex-pat deal on a par with local deals ? Why do I think it's
> not ? Hmmmm

I don't really understand what you mean. As far as I know the only
difference for me here in Norway (as a foreigner) is that I am not
allowed to vote. Otherwise I pay the same taxes, and I get the same
benefits.

Joseph

Date: 18 May 2007 22:20:21
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

Dans le message de
news:1179518840.962859.77330@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com,
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > a r�fl�chi, et
puis a d�clar� :
> On May 18, 7:33 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr> wrote:

>> BTW, is your ex-pat deal on a par with local deals ? Why do I think
>> it's not ? Hmmmm
>
> I don't really understand what you mean. As far as I know the only
> difference for me here in Norway (as a foreigner) is that I am not
> allowed to vote. Otherwise I pay the same taxes, and I get the same
> benefits.

You don't have supplemental medical care insurance company paid ? Medevac
insurance to your home country ? Home leave ? NET/NET income targets ?
Tax equalization ? Homeland social security supplemental contributions ?

If the answer is no, then you are amongst the few working poor expats, or
you didn't get much advice in negotiating your contract.

Actually, I think you got a deal to have a 30-bike garage and the resources
to fill it up. Now that would have been a master stroke.

Date: 18 May 2007 10:00:04
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 18, 6:45 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message denews:1179505524.969749.251880@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.=
com,
> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> a r=E9fl=E9ch=
i, et
> puis a d=E9clar=E9 :
>
>
>
> > The thing is that with private insurance, you can chose your level of
> > coverage, and otherwise shop around for coverage that suits your
> > needs, while state-run insurance is suposed to be one size fits all.
>
> No. With national health care, you can still buy fancy medicine. France
> has it, most certainly. And the national system provides full care. So,
> where's the objection ?
>
> > The government choses what level of care you need, and what are
> > approved treatments and you have no options. You pay for it even if
> > you decide to buy your care elsewhere.
>
> Well, if you are American (I am guessing) you also pay taxes to drop bombs
> on Iraq, even if that's not your personal choice. Taxes pay for that pol=
icy
> decision, too.
>
>
>
> >>> I'm all for a system that gets people covered who want and need
> >>> insurance, but doing that at the expense of providing a system that
> >>> covers everyone is not a good idea, IMO.
>
> >> That is completely contradictory. Or do you have some Darwinian
> >> system in mind to solve overpopulation in developed countries ?
>
> > I was thinking specifically about a system for the US, which does not
> > have an overpopulation problem. I don't think it is contradictory.
> > Basically I'm saying a state-run mandatory insurance designed for
> > everyone will provide needed acceptable levels of coverage for those
> > who don't currently have it, but will provide worse levels of service
> > for those that are currently doing just fine.
>
> No one is forced to get worse than basic coverage, and getting better than
> average coverage remains elective for payment. You want to enable people=
to
> pay for what they want - again, where's the problem ?

The problem is that the price of the compulsory basic coverage baloons
to be more than the price of what was above average coverage, and to
get good coverage you have to spend even more. Sure it works, but it's
wasteful and unecessary. In France how much of your tax money do you
supose goes toward funding this basic national coverage? And how much
do you have to pay for some private insurance on top of that to ensure
you have whatever care you want? Sure it's nice because people who
otherwise would have no coverage do have it, but at what cost? I'm all
for getting coverage for those people, but it would be nice to not
have to be so wasteful doing it.

I don't mind paying taxes for things that are for the public good but
do not affect me personally (like welfare, orphanages, jails,
whatever) but I don't want to pay for things that are supposed to be
for me but I don't use because they are not good enough (schools,
medical insurance, etc).

Joseph

Date: 18 May 2007 10:38:47
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1179507604.012405.205600@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 18, 6:45 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message
> denews:1179505524.969749.251880@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> a r�fl�chi, et
> puis a d�clar� :
>
>
>
> > The thing is that with private insurance, you can chose your level of
> > coverage, and otherwise shop around for coverage that suits your
> > needs, while state-run insurance is suposed to be one size fits all.
>
> No. With national health care, you can still buy fancy medicine. France
> has it, most certainly. And the national system provides full care. So,
> where's the objection ?
>
> > The government choses what level of care you need, and what are
> > approved treatments and you have no options. You pay for it even if
> > you decide to buy your care elsewhere.
>
> Well, if you are American (I am guessing) you also pay taxes to drop bombs
> on Iraq, even if that's not your personal choice. Taxes pay for that
> policy
> decision, too.
>
>
>
> >>> I'm all for a system that gets people covered who want and need
> >>> insurance, but doing that at the expense of providing a system that
> >>> covers everyone is not a good idea, IMO.
>
> >> That is completely contradictory. Or do you have some Darwinian
> >> system in mind to solve overpopulation in developed countries ?
>
> > I was thinking specifically about a system for the US, which does not
> > have an overpopulation problem. I don't think it is contradictory.
> > Basically I'm saying a state-run mandatory insurance designed for
> > everyone will provide needed acceptable levels of coverage for those
> > who don't currently have it, but will provide worse levels of service
> > for those that are currently doing just fine.
>
> No one is forced to get worse than basic coverage, and getting better than
> average coverage remains elective for payment. You want to enable people
> to
> pay for what they want - again, where's the problem ?

The problem is that the price of the compulsory basic coverage baloons
to be more than the price of what was above average coverage, and to
get good coverage you have to spend even more. Sure it works, but it's
wasteful and unecessary. In France how much of your tax money do you
supose goes toward funding this basic national coverage? And how much
do you have to pay for some private insurance on top of that to ensure
you have whatever care you want? Sure it's nice because people who
otherwise would have no coverage do have it, but at what cost? I'm all
for getting coverage for those people, but it would be nice to not
have to be so wasteful doing it.

I don't mind paying taxes for things that are for the public good but
do not affect me personally (like welfare, orphanages, jails,
whatever) but I don't want to pay for things that are supposed to be
for me but I don't use because they are not good enough (schools,
medical insurance, etc).

Joseph, who is your insurer? All I know is that I pay huge amounts of money
for medical insurance (I am self employed and actually pay premium), and I
get shit managed care. It could not possibly be any worse off under a
socialized medical program unless I were living in a third world country. My
personal monthly premium is about $450 (including very sparse dental). Add
another premium for my son, and one for my wife -- and guess what, that's
$1,350 A MONTH. This does not include the HUGE deductible, co-pay,
non-covered therapies, etc. The government would have to tax the living
daylights out of me to make me pay more than that for socialized medicine.
Luckily, my wife's premium is now a lot lower under a Medicare Advantage
program.

My wife is on Medicare due to a disability (she has a Parkinson's-like
condition). She has stimulators in her brain that are fed by transmitters
that have to be changed every three years at a price of about $50K. Her
Medicare Advantage plan (which is somewhat of a scam in itself) covers most
of that and has better coverage than my private medical plan -- except for
the drug benefit, which only matters if you spend more than $2,500 on drugs
a year. The US is going to have to get its shit together real fast and come
up with a sustainable socialized medical program (or some other fix -- the
market is not doing it) because a lot of ordinary working people will not be
able to keep up with the cost of medical care or the cost of health
insurance, and more and more employers will simply quit offering health
insurance. -- Jay Beattie.

Date: 18 May 2007 15:53:45
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

In article <464de381$0$17197$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net >,
"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote:

> All I know is that I pay huge amounts of money for medical insurance
> (I am self employed and actually pay premium), and I get shit managed
> care.

In my case, my health insurance costs about 21% of my take home income.
That's for a second-tier HMO policy. The premium HMO policy would cost
me 25% of my take-home income.

To break even on the nation's total health care costs for 2006 (2.1
trillion dollars), nationalized health care premiums would have to
average $581 per person (301 million) per month. That doesn't save you
any money- quite the opposite. However, a nationalized program could
contain drug costs, hospital costs, etc. much more effectively and
equitably than the current system does. The total health care price tag
could be reduced.

If the current tax payments that go into Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and
the VA system were rolled into a national health care plan, the premiums
would come down dramatically and cost less than private health insurance
premiums. If the premiums were levied on a progressive system, it would
be much more affordable than private health insurance for the half of
the country making below the mean. (I think that people should pay a
premium- even if it's only $5 a month- and a copayment for their health
care. We need a reminder that there is a cost and we need to be
invested in and feel ownership in the system).

With this, to contain costs and promote the best available health care,
there would probably need to be an emphasis on evidence-based medicine
(when evidence is available) and a primary care provider model.

> It could not possibly be any worse off under a socialized medical
> program unless I were living in a third world country. My personal
> monthly premium is about $450 (including very sparse dental). Add
> another premium for my son, and one for my wife -- and guess what,
> that's $1,350 A MONTH. This does not include the HUGE deductible,
> co-pay, non-covered therapies, etc. The government would have to tax
> the living daylights out of me to make me pay more than that for
> socialized medicine. Luckily, my wife's premium is now a lot lower
> under a Medicare Advantage program.

Well that's the thing. We are already paying tax dollars destined to go
to health care expenditures, and that money would be rolled into a
national health care system to defray the premiums as noted above. Your
wife's program shows this.

> My wife is on Medicare due to a disability (she has a
> Parkinson's-like condition). She has stimulators in her brain that
> are fed by transmitters that have to be changed every three years at
> a price of about $50K. Her Medicare Advantage plan (which is
> somewhat of a scam in itself) covers most of that and has better
> coverage than my private medical plan -- except for the drug benefit,
> which only matters if you spend more than $2,500 on drugs a year.

Jay, I am real sorry to hear that. Neurological diseases suck. I hope
that your wife is doing well.

> The US is going to have to get its shit together real fast and come
> up with a sustainable socialized medical program (or some other fix
> -- the market is not doing it) because a lot of ordinary working
> people will not be able to keep up with the cost of medical care or
> the cost of health insurance, and more and more employers will simply
> quit offering health insurance.

The market has a vested interest in not fixing the problems- especially
insurance companies- because they are practically printing their own
money.

Date: 18 May 2007 19:23:42
From: still me
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Fri, 18 May 2007 10:38:47 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
<jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote:

>The US is going to have to get its shit together real fast and come
>up with a sustainable socialized medical program (or some other fix -- the
>market is not doing it) because a lot of ordinary working people will not be
>able to keep up with the cost of medical care or the cost of health
>insurance, and more and more employers will simply quit offering health
>insurance.

"Have to" is strong language. The Republicans don't give a $hit about
the people - they'll sell you and the country out for a buck in a NY
minute (all the time throwing tidbits to the suckers who buy their
marketing BS). The Democrats can't seem to dull their ultra liberal
wing long enough to build reasonable solutions that will work and
couldn't market their way out of a box.

We're screwed.

Date: 18 May 2007 19:33:05
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

Dans le message de
news:1179507604.012405.205600@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > a r�fl�chi, et
puis a d�clar� :
>
> The problem is that the price of the compulsory basic coverage baloons
> to be more than the price of what was above average coverage, and to
> get good coverage you have to spend even more. Sure it works, but it's
> wasteful and unecessary. In France how much of your tax money do you
> supose goes toward funding this basic national coverage? And how much
> do you have to pay for some private insurance on top of that to ensure
> you have whatever care you want? Sure it's nice because people who
> otherwise would have no coverage do have it, but at what cost? I'm all
> for getting coverage for those people, but it would be nice to not
> have to be so wasteful doing it.

?????????
In France, all monies paid into the medical care system are dispensed within
that system. It is not touchable as is the Social Security system in the
USA. Whatever we pay, at whatever level of contribution, goes to this
single purpose. In its own way, it is _not_ a tax, although it is
compulsory.

For most people who use it, the bulk of regular care is paid for. Where the
trick comes in, in France, is that when a provider charges /more/ than the
standard rates, his own absolute reimbursement is /lower/. It discourages
excessive costs. France also prescribes too many drugs, and the system is
now geared to identifying them, and reducing the benefit rates.

As most care provided is reimbursed at around 70%, and as the relative costs
of care are lower, the premiums necessary to support secondary, private
insurance are very low, and there is great competition for these premiums.
>
> I don't mind paying taxes for things that are for the public good but
> do not affect me personally (like welfare, orphanages, jails,
> whatever) but I don't want to pay for things that are supposed to be
> for me but I don't use because they are not good enough (schools,
> medical insurance, etc).
>
Evidently, you still are happy paying for bombs, for electronic spying on
citizens, just cause you are a Good Joe. It's nice you don't begrudge
widows and orphans - cancel that, it's just orphans - their meagre
subsistance. So nice I may weep all night. Thanks. I was losing faith in
your generosity.

BTW, is your ex-pat deal on a par with local deals ? Why do I think it's
not ? Hmmmm

Date: 18 May 2007 09:25:25
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 18, 2:04 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote:
> Dans le message denews:1179489325.455001.257300@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.=
com,
> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> a r=E9fl=E9ch=
i, et
> puis a d=E9clar=E9 :
>
> > Why should the government pay for these type of people's medical
> > expenses? They should be able to provide for their own coverage
> > themselves. So any system that covers everyone ends up paying for
> > these people as well as indigents who have no means of providing for
> > themselves.
>
> I think you just don't get what insurance is. It is the collection of
> premiums from a large population which is then redistributed to pay for
> those who bet wrong - who need to benefit from the revenues held for class
> benefit.
>
> The only difference in a state-run insurance scheme is that _all_ the
> population contributes to the kitty, and _all_ of them are covered for bad
> eventualities.

The thing is that with private insurance, you can chose your level of
coverage, and otherwise shop around for coverage that suits your
needs, while state-run insurance is suposed to be one size fits all.
The government choses what level of care you need, and what are
approved treatments and you have no options. You pay for it even if
you decide to buy your care elsewhere.

> What you ought to be more concerned about is the gap between the rate of =
pay
> to healthcare providers in the US and in Europe. Because the ration of c=
ost
> to income is much higher in the US, the premiums demanded are higher than
> one can reasonably pay for the same levels of care in Europe. No, not
> everything is perfect, but I think the more general response to need is
> preferable.

I think there are many different factors at play here like the culture
of technology in the US. In Europe a siphon type simple tube might be
used to drain somebody's stomach, while some expensive pump might be
used for the same task in the US. This type of difference makes direct
comparisons of costs difficult to make.

> > I'm all for a system that gets people covered who want and need
> > insurance, but doing that at the expense of providing a system that
> > covers everyone is not a good idea, IMO.
>
> That is completely contradictory. Or do you have some Darwinian system in
> mind to solve overpopulation in developed countries ?

I was thinking specifically about a system for the US, which does not
have an overpopulation problem. I don't think it is contradictory.
Basically I'm saying a state-run mandatory insurance designed for
everyone will provide needed acceptable levels of coverage for those
who don't currently have it, but will provide worse levels of service
for those that are currently doing just fine. Let's find a way to get
coverage for those who lack it without forcing those who already have
it to get worse treatment.

Joseph

Date: 18 May 2007 18:45:41
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

Dans le message de
news:1179505524.969749.251880@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > a r�fl�chi, et
puis a d�clar� :
>
> The thing is that with private insurance, you can chose your level of
> coverage, and otherwise shop around for coverage that suits your
> needs, while state-run insurance is suposed to be one size fits all.

No. With national health care, you can still buy fancy medicine. France
has it, most certainly. And the national system provides full care. So,
where's the objection ?

> The government choses what level of care you need, and what are
> approved treatments and you have no options. You pay for it even if
> you decide to buy your care elsewhere.

Well, if you are American (I am guessing) you also pay taxes to drop bombs
on Iraq, even if that's not your personal choice. Taxes pay for that policy
decision, too.
>
>>> I'm all for a system that gets people covered who want and need
>>> insurance, but doing that at the expense of providing a system that
>>> covers everyone is not a good idea, IMO.
>>
>> That is completely contradictory. Or do you have some Darwinian
>> system in mind to solve overpopulation in developed countries ?
>
> I was thinking specifically about a system for the US, which does not
> have an overpopulation problem. I don't think it is contradictory.
> Basically I'm saying a state-run mandatory insurance designed for
> everyone will provide needed acceptable levels of coverage for those
> who don't currently have it, but will provide worse levels of service
> for those that are currently doing just fine.

No one is forced to get worse than basic coverage, and getting better than
average coverage remains elective for payment. You want to enable people to
pay for what they want - again, where's the problem ?
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Date: 18 May 2007 06:14:26
From: datakoll@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 18, 12:02 am, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> datak...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > brush your teeth, bathe, use iodine, read nutrition and medical care,
> > check your shock cord, don't eat fat, don't drink a lot of CHO or
> > coffee, inhale smoke, drink water, excercise, wear a hat in the sun,
> > don't speed in town, associate with loose women.
>
> If that's your life, why live?

GOOD QUESTION! my father would ask "what are you doing?" I'd tell him
and he's shake his head. Finally, he gave me a cell phone.

Date: 18 May 2007 04:55:25
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 18, 11:57 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On 17 May 2007 23:57:23 -0700, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 18, 1:28 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On 17 May 2007 12:52:12 -0700, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> >> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >I'm not saying there aren't a large number of people who
> >> >want insurance yet do not have it. Just that the number isn't as high
> >> >as people assume.
>
> >> So what. So it's only 20 million instead of 25 million and getting
> >> worse. What's your point? That it's not a crisis? Wow.
>
> >20 or 25? 10 or 50? I don't know, but the number makes a big
> >difference in how the problem is adressed.
>
> It doesn't make a difference in saying it's a crisis and something
> must be done. It makes a difference in the form of action taken.

Indeed the most important thing is the action taken. But the
perception of the severity of the problem dictates what action is
being considered. Ideally the perception would be as close to reality
as possible, but I fear the perception is skewed towards
overestimating the problem. The post about the 113 indigents in
Wisconsin gives an indication of this. Obvioulsy I don't think there
are only 113 indigents in Wisconsin that lack health coverage, but the
disconnect between the 100,000 number and the 113 is too huge to
ignore.

> >Not so much because I don't feel it is
> > the place of goverment to do so, but more from a fear that on the
> >whole it will be worse, and undoable.
>
> I don't believe you really make that distinction.

Perhaps I don't really make that distinction. But I know that as bad
as the current system is in terms of high costs from the overhead of
paperwork and bureaucracy, it would only be worse under a government
run program. The total costs for any given medical procedure would be
higher, and the overall quality of service (waiting times, etc) would
be worse.

But there is the question of wether government should be involved at
all. What happens if somebody's house burns down and they don't have
insurance? Should the government foot the bill? Here are two
illustration cases I know of here in Norway (these are real, I know
the people):

A 20 something man crashes his motorcycle and severly injured. He
needs constant care for the rest of his life. His immediate medical
costs were easliy hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention his
ongoing care. He was from an average income family, and would in the
US have had more than enough money to buy his own insurance.

A 60 year old man who has had numerous organ transplant operations,
and is a walking showcase of medical miracles. His care over the years
has no doubt cost millions (really) of dollars. He is by anyone's
standards rich, and could have had his own insurance, or could have
even just paid cash.

Why should the government pay for these type of people's medical
expenses? They should be able to provide for their own coverage
themselves. So any system that covers everyone ends up paying for
these people as well as indigents who have no means of providing for
themselves.

I'm all for a system that gets people covered who want and need
insurance, but doing that at the expense of providing a system that
covers everyone is not a good idea, IMO.

Joseph

Date: 18 May 2007 08:06:38
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On 18 May 2007 04:55:25 -0700, "joseph.santaniello@gmail.com"
<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote:

>But I know that as bad
>as the current system is in terms of high costs from the overhead of
>paperwork and bureaucracy, it would only be worse under a government
>run program.

That's why I don't take your comments on politics seriously -- you
start with an extreme bias on some things like that.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 18 May 2007 18:38:27
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

> <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But I know that as bad
>> as the current system is in terms of high costs from the overhead of
>> paperwork and bureaucracy, it would only be worse under a government
>> run program.

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> That's why I don't take your comments on politics seriously -- you
> start with an extreme bias on some things like that.

Extreme bias?
Ever go to the DMV or the local Assessor's office?

Cook County Hospitals (Chicago) has a fully staffed billing department
but the local paper reports they do no billing. At all, ever. Even for
people with coverage or the means to pay. Great management there.
Probably the same managers who would 'move up' in an expanded program.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 18 May 2007 19:51:48
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Fri, 18 May 2007 18:38:27 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:

>> <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> But I know that as bad
>>> as the current system is in terms of high costs from the overhead of
>>> paperwork and bureaucracy, it would only be worse under a government
>>> run program.
>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> That's why I don't take your comments on politics seriously -- you
>> start with an extreme bias on some things like that.
>
>Extreme bias?
>Ever go to the DMV or the local Assessor's office?

I was at the DMV two months ago to get an eye test and new license
and it took about 15 minutes, or maybe a little less...I wasn't timing
it. Though I only got a valid paper license on the spot -- the actual
license with picture came a week or two later.

Never been to an assessor's office.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 19 May 2007 18:36:47
From: still me
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:51:48 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

>
>I was at the DMV two months ago to get an eye test and new license
>and it took about 15 minutes, or maybe a little less...I wasn't timing
>it. Though I only got a valid paper license on the spot -- the actual
>license with picture came a week or two later.

Yeah, now they have you in the database so they can have that national
ID system we don't want.

Date: 19 May 2007 15:05:35
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Sat, 19 May 2007 18:36:47 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:51:48 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I was at the DMV two months ago to get an eye test and new license
>>and it took about 15 minutes, or maybe a little less...I wasn't timing
>>it. Though I only got a valid paper license on the spot -- the actual
>>license with picture came a week or two later.
>
>Yeah, now they have you in the database so they can have that national
>ID system we don't want.

Yeah.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 18 May 2007 14:04:16
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

Dans le message de
news:1179489325.455001.257300@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > a r�fl�chi, et
puis a d�clar� :

> Why should the government pay for these type of people's medical
> expenses? They should be able to provide for their own coverage
> themselves. So any system that covers everyone ends up paying for
> these people as well as indigents who have no means of providing for
> themselves.

I think you just don't get what insurance is. It is the collection of
premiums from a large population which is then redistributed to pay for
those who bet wrong - who need to benefit from the revenues held for class
benefit.

The only difference in a state-run insurance scheme is that _all_ the
population contributes to the kitty, and _all_ of them are covered for bad
eventualities.

What you ought to be more concerned about is the gap between the rate of pay
to healthcare providers in the US and in Europe. Because the ration of cost
to income is much higher in the US, the premiums demanded are higher than
one can reasonably pay for the same levels of care in Europe. No, not
everything is perfect, but I think the more general response to need is
preferable.

> I'm all for a system that gets people covered who want and need
> insurance, but doing that at the expense of providing a system that
> covers everyone is not a good idea, IMO.

That is completely contradictory. Or do you have some Darwinian system in
mind to solve overpopulation in developed countries ?

Date: 21 May 2007 14:08:52
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

still me wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > still me wrote:
> >>
> >> I disagree. Kerry is way out of the mainstream. Hillary is fairly far
> >> out too. So is Pelosi. Many others too. If you don't agree that they
> >> are very liberal, then I'd suggest you yourself are very liberal and
> >> your liberal-ness compass is skewed. I'm not suggesting that very
> >> liberal is bad or wrong, it's just out of the mainstream. Liberal
> >> doesn't get elected President.
> >>
> >> Nader wasn't a liberal, he was (is) a whack job without a clue as to
> >> reality
>
> >It looks like someone has been drawing his sustenance from Rupert
> >Murdock's hind teat.
>
> I think you misread me, my friend. I'm probably one of the only people
> here who can render a neutral judgement since I don't like any of
> them.
>
> PS - I used to like Nader, before he went nuts :-)

The reframing of centrist, pro-corporate democrats as "ultra-liberals"
is a fallacy promoted by the right-wing corporate ownership of media
outlets, so that they can induce people to find a false "center" that
actually lies between center-right and far right. These Democrats you
characterize as ultra-liberal, how many of them voted against the
invasion of Iraq? How many of them voted against the Patriot Act?
How many of them have stuck their necks out to restore habeas corpus?
If you think they are liberal, you have been snookered by the right.

Normal left issues, the kind that other developed countries of the
world consider to be on the left, don't even get a place at the table
in the USA. You know, things like single-payer universal health care,
progressive taxation, welfare/public relief, demilitarization, checks
on corporate power and political influence-- "crazy, unrealistic"
stuff like that.

So political centrists-- the folks who insist upon always being at
least half wrong-- get taken for a huge ride in the US, because our
news and information outlets have shifted the whole latitude of
discussion to the right.

Enjoy your ride.

Chalo

Date: 23 May 2007 02:53:48
From: still me
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On 21 May 2007 14:08:52 -0700, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:

>So political centrists-- the folks who insist upon always being at
>least half wrong-- get taken for a huge ride in the US, because our
>news and information outlets have shifted the whole latitude of
>discussion to the right.
>
>Enjoy your ride.

Sorry, I have to disagree. The country has been moving steadily more
conservative since the Vietnam War ended. Credit the move to the
Republican marketing machine if you like (it's very good) but most
Americans don't agree with a lot of Democratic positions. When the
Republicans get so offensive that you just can't accept them anymore,
opinions shift a bit back to the left, but the country is more
conservative now.

Bottom line - Northern white liberals like Kerry, Hillary, etc. won't
get elected. Obama won't get elected because he's black. A Southern
white has a shot at it (and that ain't tainted Al Gore).

Date: 22 May 2007 19:59:22
From: Bill
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

still me wrote:
> On 21 May 2007 14:08:52 -0700, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So political centrists-- the folks who insist upon always being at
>> least half wrong-- get taken for a huge ride in the US, because our
>> news and information outlets have shifted the whole latitude of
>> discussion to the right.
>>
>> Enjoy your ride.
>
>
> Sorry, I have to disagree. The country has been moving steadily more
> conservative since the Vietnam War ended. Credit the move to the
> Republican marketing machine if you like (it's very good) but most
> Americans don't agree with a lot of Democratic positions. When the
> Republicans get so offensive that you just can't accept them anymore,
> opinions shift a bit back to the left, but the country is more
> conservative now.
>
> Bottom line - Northern white liberals like Kerry, Hillary, etc. won't
> get elected. Obama won't get elected because he's black. A Southern
> white has a shot at it (and that ain't tainted Al Gore).
>
>
>
That doesn't leave much hope for 2008.
Most people I know think that Hillary for president and Obama for V.P.
MIGHT work. Other than that the choices are pretty sad.
I don't think the country could survive another 4 years of Republicans.
Sad situation.
Bill Baka

Date: 21 May 2007 23:25:21
From: Lou Holtman
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

Chalo wrote:
> still me wrote:
>> Chalo wrote:
>>> still me wrote:
>>>> I disagree. Kerry is way out of the mainstream. Hillary is fairly far
>>>> out too. So is Pelosi. Many others too. If you don't agree that they
>>>> are very liberal, then I'd suggest you yourself are very liberal and
>>>> your liberal-ness compass is skewed. I'm not suggesting that very
>>>> liberal is bad or wrong, it's just out of the mainstream. Liberal
>>>> doesn't get elected President.
>>>>
>>>> Nader wasn't a liberal, he was (is) a whack job without a clue as to
>>>> reality
>>> It looks like someone has been drawing his sustenance from Rupert
>>> Murdock's hind teat.
>> I think you misread me, my friend. I'm probably one of the only people
>> here who can render a neutral judgement since I don't like any of
>> them.
>>
>> PS - I used to like Nader, before he went nuts :-)
>
> The reframing of centrist, pro-corporate democrats as "ultra-liberals"
> is a fallacy promoted by the right-wing corporate ownership of media
> outlets, so that they can induce people to find a false "center" that
> actually lies between center-right and far right. These Democrats you
> characterize as ultra-liberal, how many of them voted against the
> invasion of Iraq? How many of them voted against the Patriot Act?
> How many of them have stuck their necks out to restore habeas corpus?
> If you think they are liberal, you have been snookered by the right.
>
> Normal left issues, the kind that other developed countries of the
> world consider to be on the left, don't even get a place at the table
> in the USA. You know, things like single-payer universal health care,
> progressive taxation, welfare/public relief, demilitarization, checks
> on corporate power and political influence-- "crazy, unrealistic"
> stuff like that.
>
> So political centrists-- the folks who insist upon always being at
> least half wrong-- get taken for a huge ride in the US, because our
> news and information outlets have shifted the whole latitude of
> discussion to the right.
>
> Enjoy your ride.
>
> Chalo
>

Yes, I always laughing my nuts off when people call the Democratics
'Ultra Liberal'. We must be all communists here in The Netherlands then..;-)

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

Date: 17 May 2007 23:57:23
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 18, 1:28 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On 17 May 2007 12:52:12 -0700, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm not saying there aren't a large number of people who
> >want insurance yet do not have it. Just that the number isn't as high
> >as people assume.
>
> So what. So it's only 20 million instead of 25 million and getting
> worse. What's your point? That it's not a crisis? Wow.

20 or 25? 10 or 50? I don't know, but the number makes a big
difference in how the problem is adressed.

>
> I think your real point is you dont' believe in government
> intervention in much at all.

This is true to a large extent. Not so much because I don't feel it is
the place of goverment to do so, but more from a fear that on the
whole it will be worse, and undoable. This doesn't mean I don't think
something should be done to help the people who need help. It's just a
question of how.

> > If close to 50% of the people are in a situation that is not
> > good, it perhaps makes sense to think about scrapping the whole system
> > and putting something in place that works better, but if the number is
> > closer to 5% it makes more sense to figure out some way to help that
> > 5% without mucking it up for everyone else.
>
> Mucking it up for everyone else? Perhaps 20-60% of the US population
> has OK health insurance at the moment, but the way things are going is
> not sustainable. And for a large number of people holding on to that
> health insurance is becoming a major decision in where they live and
> the work they do. And they have little control over it.
>
> So not mucking it up for everyone else is nonsense -- even if most
> Americans aren't screwed at the moment they are in a precarious
> situation.

That it is a huge crisis with most people in a precarious situation is
just it. Are they really? This makes a huge difference in deciding
what to do. I beilive the numbers are not as bad as people think, and
that these non-accurate numbers are leading us down the path of a huge
unnecessary intervention of some sort, when a minor tweaking is more
what is required.

Joseph

Date: 18 May 2007 05:57:22
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On 17 May 2007 23:57:23 -0700, "joseph.santaniello@gmail.com"
<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote:

>On May 18, 1:28 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
>wrote:
>> On 17 May 2007 12:52:12 -0700, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>>
>> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I'm not saying there aren't a large number of people who
>> >want insurance yet do not have it. Just that the number isn't as high
>> >as people assume.
>>
>> So what. So it's only 20 million instead of 25 million and getting
>> worse. What's your point? That it's not a crisis? Wow.
>
>20 or 25? 10 or 50? I don't know, but the number makes a big
>difference in how the problem is adressed.

It doesn't make a difference in saying it's a crisis and something
must be done. It makes a difference in the form of action taken.

>Not so much because I don't feel it is
> the place of goverment to do so, but more from a fear that on the
>whole it will be worse, and undoable.

I don't believe you really make that distinction.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 20 May 2007 22:49:32
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

still me wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> >The only thing "ultra liberal" about the Democratic party is the size
> >of the portions they serve themselves from the corporate money
> >buffet. The last _real_ (not to say ultra-) liberal to come to center
> >stage was pointedly uninvited to the debates, and roundly ignored by
> >the corporate media. That man was Ralph Nader, and by the standards
> >of countries that actually have a left wing, he's a center-leftist.
>
> I disagree. Kerry is way out of the mainstream. Hillary is fairly far
> out too. So is Pelosi. Many others too. If you don't agree that they
> are very liberal, then I'd suggest you yourself are very liberal and
> your liberal-ness compass is skewed. I'm not suggesting that very
> liberal is bad or wrong, it's just out of the mainstream. Liberal
> doesn't get elected President.
>
> Nader wasn't a liberal, he was (is) a whack job without a clue as to
> reality

It looks like someone has been drawing his sustenance from Rupert
Murdock's hind teat.

Chalo

Date: 21 May 2007 19:09:14
From: still me
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On 20 May 2007 22:49:32 -0700, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:

>> I disagree. Kerry is way out of the mainstream. Hillary is fairly far
>> out too. So is Pelosi. Many others too. If you don't agree that they
>> are very liberal, then I'd suggest you yourself are very liberal and
>> your liberal-ness compass is skewed. I'm not suggesting that very
>> liberal is bad or wrong, it's just out of the mainstream. Liberal
>> doesn't get elected President.
>>
>> Nader wasn't a liberal, he was (is) a whack job without a clue as to
>> reality
>
>It looks like someone has been drawing his sustenance from Rupert
>Murdock's hind teat.
>
>Chalo

I think you misread me, my friend. I'm probably one of the only people
here who can render a neutral judgement since I don't like any of
them.

Bob

PS - I used to like Nader, before he went nuts :-)

Date: 22 May 2007 06:48:20
From: Bill
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

still me wrote:
> On 20 May 2007 22:49:32 -0700, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I disagree. Kerry is way out of the mainstream. Hillary is fairly far
>>> out too. So is Pelosi. Many others too. If you don't agree that they
>>> are very liberal, then I'd suggest you yourself are very liberal and
>>> your liberal-ness compass is skewed. I'm not suggesting that very
>>> liberal is bad or wrong, it's just out of the mainstream. Liberal
>>> doesn't get elected President.
>>>
>>> Nader wasn't a liberal, he was (is) a whack job without a clue as to
>>> reality
>> It looks like someone has been drawing his sustenance from Rupert
>> Murdock's hind teat.
>>
>> Chalo
>
> I think you misread me, my friend. I'm probably one of the only people
> here who can render a neutral judgement since I don't like any of
> them.
>
> Bob
>
> PS - I used to like Nader, before he went nuts :-)
>
When was Nader ever NOT nuts. He killed the Corvair and then it was
proved to be a safe car. He is and was a nut case.
As for voting I might go with Hillary and Obama as V.P. but not the
other way around. The only Republican that I would vote for can't run
because he wasn't born here but is an upstanding and responsible citizen.
Arnold for 2008.
Sorry, gotta change the Constitution.
I think that will have to happen sometime soon, even if not for Arnold.
Bill Baka

Date: 17 May 2007 20:35:25
From: datakoll@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

and bring a sheet!

so you lean over and whisper "Bill (bill's ok he's just hurting), Bill
can you hear me? (Bill thinks now what?) BIll starts yelling for you
to *&^^%%!!@@, ignore this and whisper "Bill, don't move your skull is
craked and your brains are oozing out"

or get the sheet, throw it over your buddy Bill then shout "yo Lloyd,
cancel the ambulance and call the cornor."

or the guy whose in incredible pain caws he broke his leg in three
places, do the nurse : "BILL. DOES THAT HURT??"

Date: 17 May 2007 20:30:18
From: don Gabacho
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 17, 8:14 pm, "datak...@yahoo.com" <datak...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> yeah try it its fun!
>
> when you come upon someone whose just torn himself to shreds and lies
> bleeding to death on the pavement
> DON'T PANIC!
> lean over the corpse and say: 'holy cow! its a good thing you didn't
> hurt yourself"

Uhhh. After sitting up and shaking my aching noggin, I waited, and
waited, to wave down a police car.

Finally a police car came in sight only for its driver to give me a
good glance as he passed by and went on.

Then, after about ten minutes, yet another one---while all along some
really belligerent #&@)(*$ is yelling at me from across the parking
lot to come over and give him a cigarette.

I finally managed to borrow a cell phone from a walking passerby.

I wouldn't stop or call a taxi and leave by bike---BICYCLE---and
instead called a friend with a van.

I'm signing off on this thread.

Thanks for all the well-wishers, but I'll be back on my---BICYCLE---in
only a couple of more weeks with, let's see now: How many lessons
under in my noggin?

Date: 17 May 2007 18:15:43
From: datakoll@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

brush your teeth, bathe, use iodine, read nutrition and medical care,
check your shock cord, don't eat fat, don't drink a lot of CHO or
coffee, inhale smoke, drink water, excercise, wear a hat in the sun,
don't speed in town, associate with loose women.

Date: 17 May 2007 23:02:34
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

datakoll@yahoo.com wrote:
> brush your teeth, bathe, use iodine, read nutrition and medical care,
> check your shock cord, don't eat fat, don't drink a lot of CHO or
> coffee, inhale smoke, drink water, excercise, wear a hat in the sun,
> don't speed in town, associate with loose women.

If that's your life, why live?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 17 May 2007 17:14:13
From: datakoll@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

yeah try it its fun!

when you come upon someone whose just torn himself to shreds and lies
bleeding to death on the pavement
DON'T PANIC!
lean over the corpse and say: 'holy cow! its a good thing you didn't
hurt yourself"

Date: 17 May 2007 18:52:15
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

datakoll@yahoo.com wrote:
> yeah try it its fun!
>
> when you come upon someone whose just torn himself to shreds and lies
> bleeding to death on the pavement
> DON'T PANIC!
> lean over the corpse and say: 'holy cow! its a good thing you didn't
> hurt yourself"

take a pill, gene

Date: 17 May 2007 16:26:13
From: don Gabacho
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 17, 3:45 pm, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com > wrote:

> Indeed. I do not dispute that some doctors and I assume others in the
> mediacl business are raking it in. I think this has a lot to do with
> the fact that so many people have insurance and don't really care
> about the actual cost of the care.

Uhhh, you try and find out:

When I received a (supposedly non) statement from the insurance
companying lauding itself on the money it saved me after the first
referral visit to the orthopedist, it itemized "830.00."

I took that (supposedly non) statement with me to the orthopedist on
the second visit and asked them why they had charged "$830.00" for the
four minutes. The woman said that she didn't know; their accountant
was out to lunch and she couldn't find out, the rates were negotiated
between the clinic and the insurance company and that the "830.00" was
a "code"!

"A code"? "The insurance company was bragging how much 'code' they had
saved me"?

She didn't respond.

"Surely I have a right to know what expenses are being incurred!, I
said" "How often a day do you have people coming in here asking about
the charge for you to answer the figure is actually a "code"?

She responded "all the time."

"And," I asked, "it still hasn't occurred to your accountants not to
have your 'codes' appear as a monied price"? "Throw in a letter or
two"?

She laughed.

I then asked her "How much will this second visit would cost, that,
surely I have a right to know before incurring anymore while surely
your clinic must know?"

She responded saying that "It is between you and your insurance
company."

As it turned out, it was no "code" and it was the price.

I have yet to learn what the cost of the second visit is or will be.

While verifying, with the insurance company, that the 830.00 for the
first do-nothing visit, was indeed the price, I wasn't such an idiot
not to sense that the insurance company would drop me altogether if I
pursued just what prices they are paying with my premium payments.

Isn't this secret negotiating and so-called "code" just the old
'rigamarole'?

Date: 17 May 2007 12:52:12
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 17, 9:27 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On 17 May 2007 11:38:06 -0700, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >While I don't dispute that, the figures of the uninsured also include
> >people only temporarily uninsured (a potentially bad situation of
> >course), and those that chose not to be insured. The problem of people
> >who want insurance but don't have it is I think overestimated in terms
> >of numbers. This of course means nothing if you happen to be one of
> >those people, but nonetheless I think the crisis is overblown.
>
> Choose not to be insured? Overblown? Wow.
>
No, really. I'm not saying there aren't a large number of people who
want insurance yet do not have it. Just that the number isn't as high
as people assume. There are lots of people who have no insurance who
don't want it either. Wether that is wise is a different discussion.
This has major implications in how you go about addressing the
problem. If close to 50% of the people are in a situation that is not
good, it perhaps makes sense to think about scrapping the whole system
and putting something in place that works better, but if the number is
closer to 5% it makes more sense to figure out some way to help that
5% without mucking it up for everyone else. I think the numbers thrown
around tend to be alarmist with the intent of making people think more
along the lines of the first scenario.

Joseph

Date: 18 May 2007 15:21:17
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

In article <1179431532.553020.303510@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
"joseph.santaniello@gmail.com" <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote:

> On May 17, 9:27 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
> > On 17 May 2007 11:38:06 -0700, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
> >
> > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >While I don't dispute that, the figures of the uninsured also include
> > >people only temporarily uninsured (a potentially bad situation of
> > >course), and those that chose not to be insured. The problem of people
> > >who want insurance but don't have it is I think overestimated in terms
> > >of numbers. This of course means nothing if you happen to be one of
> > >those people, but nonetheless I think the crisis is overblown.
> >
> > Choose not to be insured? Overblown? Wow.
> >
> No, really. I'm not saying there aren't a large number of people who
> want insurance yet do not have it. Just that the number isn't as high
> as people assume.

45,000,000 Americans. That's not an "assumption," that's a figure
provided by the U.S. government (which BTW has a vested interest in
making that number look smaller, especially in election cycles).

> There are lots of people who have no insurance who don't want it
> either.

Really? I have never met even one person who did not have health
insurance and didn't want it. Who are these people who don't have
health insurance and don't want it? Are there immortals among us who
are impervious to disease?

> Wether that is wise is a different discussion. This has major
> implications in how you go about addressing the problem. If close to
> 50% of the people are in a situation that is not good, it perhaps
> makes sense to think about scrapping the whole system and putting
> something in place that works better, but if the number is closer to
> 5% it makes more sense to figure out some way to help that 5% without
> mucking it up for everyone else. I think the numbers thrown around
> tend to be alarmist with the intent of making people think more along
> the lines of the first scenario.

5%? Try 14.5% of the U.S. population. 45,000,000 is a lot of people.
Pull your head out of the sand, Joe.

Date: 17 May 2007 19:28:18
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On 17 May 2007 12:52:12 -0700, "joseph.santaniello@gmail.com"
<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote:

>I'm not saying there aren't a large number of people who
>want insurance yet do not have it. Just that the number isn't as high
>as people assume.

So what. So it's only 20 million instead of 25 million and getting
worse. What's your point? That it's not a crisis? Wow.

I think your real point is you dont' believe in government
intervention in much at all.

> If close to 50% of the people are in a situation that is not
> good, it perhaps makes sense to think about scrapping the whole system
> and putting something in place that works better, but if the number is
> closer to 5% it makes more sense to figure out some way to help that
> 5% without mucking it up for everyone else.

Mucking it up for everyone else? Perhaps 20-60% of the US population
has OK health insurance at the moment, but the way things are going is
not sustainable. And for a large number of people holding on to that
health insurance is becoming a major decision in where they live and
the work they do. And they have little control over it.

So not mucking it up for everyone else is nonsense -- even if most
Americans aren't screwed at the moment they are in a precarious
situation.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 18 May 2007 22:13:12
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

still me wrote:
>
> The Democrats can't seem to dull their ultra liberal
> wing long enough to build reasonable solutions that will work and
> couldn't market their way out of a box.

The only thing "ultra liberal" about the Democratic party is the size
of the portions they serve themselves from the corporate money
buffet. The last _real_ (not to say ultra-) liberal to come to center
stage was pointedly uninvited to the debates, and roundly ignored by
the corporate media. That man was Ralph Nader, and by the standards
of countries that actually have a left wing, he's a center-leftist.

Chalo

Date: 19 May 2007 18:41:22
From: still me
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On 18 May 2007 22:13:12 -0700, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:

>> The Democrats can't seem to dull their ultra liberal
>> wing long enough to build reasonable solutions that will work and
>> couldn't market their way out of a box.
>
>The only thing "ultra liberal" about the Democratic party is the size
>of the portions they serve themselves from the corporate money
>buffet. The last _real_ (not to say ultra-) liberal to come to center
>stage was pointedly uninvited to the debates, and roundly ignored by
>the corporate media. That man was Ralph Nader, and by the standards
>of countries that actually have a left wing, he's a center-leftist.

I disagree. Kerry is way out of the mainstream. Hillary is fairly far
out too. So is Pelosi. Many others too. If you don't agree that they
are very liberal, then I'd suggest you yourself are very liberal and
your liberal-ness compass is skewed. I'm not suggesting that very
liberal is bad or wrong, it's just out of the mainstream. Liberal
doesn't get elected President.

Nader wasn't a liberal, he was (is) a whack job without a clue as to
reality

Date: 19 May 2007 15:07:38
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Sat, 19 May 2007 18:41:22 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com >
wrote:

> Liberal
>doesn't get elected President.

Yeah, being liberal results in a couple percentage points difference
in popular voting (up or down depending on which of the last two
elections you're talking about).

Big difference, huh? Big difference.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 20 May 2007 15:42:14
From: still me
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:07:38 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

>
>Yeah, being liberal results in a couple percentage points difference
>in popular voting (up or down depending on which of the last two
>elections you're talking about).

Liberals don't get elected President. Take a look at how many lost in
the last few decades. Centrists get elected. For the Democrats, that
means conservative (relatively speaking) Democrats.

Take a look a the last election. GWB the most vulnerable candidate
running for re-election in many, many years. So, how could he possibly
have won? Because the Dumbocrats were stupid enough to pick a Northern
white liberal for a candidate. The bad news for them is that they are
stupid enough to do something like that again by picking Hillary or
Obama.

Date: 19 May 2007 15:06:22
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Sat, 19 May 2007 18:41:22 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>I disagree. Kerry is way out of the mainstream. Hillary is fairly far
>out too. So is Pelosi. Many others too. If you don't agree that they
>are very liberal, then I'd suggest you yourself are very liberal and
>your liberal-ness compass is skewed. I'm not suggesting that very
>liberal is bad or wrong, it's just out of the mainstream.

WTF does this "out of the mainstream" mean?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 20 May 2007 15:34:30
From: still me
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:06:22 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

>
>WTF does this "out of the mainstream" mean?
>--
>JT

The main part of any stream (river) typically runs in the center. So
do people who want to get elected President.

Date: 24 May 2007 18:13:41
From: datakoll@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: VERY FAR OFF

On May 24, 1:35 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote:
> Sandy wrote:
> > just making sure we don't have another meltdown.
> > take it elsewhere. this subject could be in a FAQ, but not here.
>
> But it's OK to talk about the French health care system, right? (I picked a
> random post of yours up-thread.)
>
> Mercy, merci.

you got VD again soreson?

Date: 24 May 2007 22:11:53
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: VERY FAR OFF

datakoll@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 24, 1:35 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
>> Sandy wrote:
>>> just making sure we don't have another meltdown.
>>> take it elsewhere. this subject could be in a FAQ, but not here.
>>
>> But it's OK to talk about the French health care system, right? (I
>> picked a random post of yours up-thread.)
>>
>> Mercy, merci.
>
> you got VD again soreson?

why must you say such hurtful things, nubgot?

ROTFL

Date: 20 May 2007 12:23:24
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:34:30 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:06:22 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>WTF does this "out of the mainstream" mean?
>>--
>>JT
>
>The main part of any stream (river) typically runs in the center. So
>do people who want to get elected President.

George Bush was not in the American mainstream and he got elected.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 21 May 2007 19:15:38
From: still me
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Sun, 20 May 2007 12:23:24 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

>George Bush was not in the American mainstream and he got elected.

Not so. He's not in the mainstream that you define but he's way closer
to what the average joe wants. Most all of his positions were middle
of the road, pre-election. Average joe hates him now but he loved him
before the Iraq war.

Keep in mind, I don't like him in the least, but that's not really the
issue. :-)

Date: 21 May 2007 18:16:23
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:15:38 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com >
wrote:

> He's not in the mainstream that you define but he's way closer
>to what the average joe wants.
The average Joe wants tax cuts for the rich, corruption in government,
and losing a war? And exporting jobs and producing more terrorism?

I did not know that.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 23 May 2007 02:40:26
From: still me
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:16:23 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

>The average Joe wants tax cuts for the rich, corruption in government,
>and losing a war? And exporting jobs and producing more terrorism?
>
>I did not know that.

In a way, yes.

Average Joe buys the marketing hype from the Republicans. Let's not
miss the fact that they've been doing it for years, and doing it well.
Just to pick one of your issues, taxes - average Joe hears the
Republicans tell him that they are going to save him money on taxes.
They do cut his taxes by $100, whilst cutting their own by millions.
Average Joe isn't sharp enough to question it. They raise other fees
or trim other deduction, but AJ misses that. He listens to the
marketing BS. Besides, they convince him that anyone questioning it is
really just questioning Average Joe's tax cut, and he can't have that.
Damn unpatriotic naysayers!

I can do the rest of the math for you, but it's the same pattern.
Those who are seriously in charge of the neo-facist conspiracy have
done an incredible job of marketing, over many years, to convince
average joe that they are looking out for him. At the same time,
they've been painting the Democrats (= liberal) as unpatriotic and
weak on being an American. Very clever marketing.

Date: 23 May 2007 06:19:30
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Wed, 23 May 2007 02:40:26 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>On Mon, 21 May 2007 18:16:23 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>The average Joe wants tax cuts for the rich, corruption in government,
>>and losing a war? And exporting jobs and producing more terrorism?
>>
>>I did not know that.
>
>In a way, yes.
>
>Average Joe buys the marketing hype from the Republicans. Let's not
>miss the fact that they've been doing it for years, and doing it well.
>Just to pick one of your issues, taxes - average Joe hears the
>Republicans tell him that they are going to save him money on taxes.
>They do cut his taxes by $100, whilst cutting their own by millions.
>Average Joe isn't sharp enough to question it. They raise other fees
>or trim other deduction, but AJ misses that. He listens to the
>marketing BS. Besides, they convince him that anyone questioning it is
>really just questioning Average Joe's tax cut, and he can't have that.
>Damn unpatriotic naysayers!
>
>I can do the rest of the math for you, but it's the same pattern.
>Those who are seriously in charge of the neo-facist conspiracy have
>done an incredible job of marketing, over many years, to convince
>average joe that they are looking out for him. At the same time,
>they've been painting the Democrats (= liberal) as unpatriotic and
>weak on being an American. Very clever marketing.

So the upshot isn't that the people you call liberals are not actually
out of the American mainstream or particularly left, it's just that
because they are *slightly* less conservative than the Republicans
opens them up to misinformation campaigns.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 23 May 2007 12:56:39
From: still me
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Wed, 23 May 2007 06:19:30 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

>So the upshot isn't that the people you call liberals are not actually
>out of the American mainstream or particularly left, it's just that
>because they are *slightly* less conservative than the Republicans
>opens them up to misinformation campaigns.

Misinformation = perception = reality.

The Democrats need to smarten up and paint the neo-cons with the same
type of brush the Republicans use to paint "liberal" as "evil". Not
only do they fail at that, they continue to select candidates who are
easily painted as liberal (if only on a few issues) and then the
Republicans stamp them with the "evil' overlay. The Democrats need to
smarten up and stop letting the "core" pick the candidates - it leads
to unelectable candidates. They need to win an election and then work
on restoring their own reality as to what they stand for.
Unfortunately they are stuck in ideology. Their candidates play to the
party core in the primaries and fail to play to the general public in
general elections. Pragmatism wins elections, not ideology.

Dislike the neo-cons if you like, but admire their multi-decade
marketing agenda and their takeover of the Republican party for their
own neo-facist purposes. While they use ideology, they use it only to
bring in support. They add in elements of general appeal to bring in
additional voters. At the same time, their true goals remain masked
from most folks and they even run loser puppet candidates like GWB
effectively. Look at their victories - Cheney, the ultimate neo-facist
neo-con, elected as VP and pulling the strings for his cronies!

Until the Democrats smarten up (don't hold your breath), or until the
backlash against the neo-cons puts them in the Whitehouse, the neo's
will continue to run the country for their own gain. Certainly we are
getting there (i.e. the last House/Senate election) but I'm not sure
we are at the breaking point. Perhaps if Iraq is still on the plate
and/or the Republicans haven't once again conned the ignorant public
into believing that there was some non-financial reason to invade
Iraq, they might have a shot at it. But, it will be the Republicans
negative moves, not positive ones by the Democrats, that turn it.

Date: 23 May 2007 19:13:43
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Wed, 23 May 2007 12:56:39 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:

>On Wed, 23 May 2007 06:19:30 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>So the upshot isn't that the people you call liberals are not actually
>>out of the American mainstream or particularly left, it's just that
>>because they are *slightly* less conservative than the Republicans
>>opens them up to misinformation campaigns.
>
>Misinformation = perception = reality.
>
>The Democrats need to smarten up and paint the neo-cons with the same
>type of brush the Republicans use to paint "liberal" as "evil".

They've been working that angle for years and beyond it's use as an euphemism
for non-liberal Jews, it doesn't get traction.

> Not
>only do they fail at that, they continue to select candidates who are
>easily painted as liberal (if only on a few issues) and then the
>Republicans stamp them with the "evil' overlay.

It's the failure to distinguish between "liberal" and "leftist" that gets 'em.
America has a long, healthy and proud liberal tradition. What it doesn't have is
much use for leftists. Especially the kind who seem most intent on running
things and then figuring out a philosophy that justifies it.

Good article you should read: http://www.observer.com/2007/edwards-easy-mark

>The Democrats need to
>smarten up and stop letting the "core" pick the candidates - it leads
>to unelectable candidates. They need to win an election and then work
>on restoring their own reality as to what they stand for.

Exactly wrong - figure out what you stand for, then see if there's anyone
buying. If not go home.

>Unfortunately they are stuck in ideology. Their candidates play to the
>party core in the primaries and fail to play to the general public in
>general elections. Pragmatism wins elections, not ideology.
>
>Dislike the neo-cons if you like, but admire their multi-decade
>marketing agenda and their takeover of the Republican party for their
>own neo-facist purposes. While they use ideology, they use it only to
>bring in support. They add in elements of general appeal to bring in
>additional voters. At the same time, their true goals remain masked
>from most folks and they even run loser puppet candidates like GWB
>effectively. Look at their victories - Cheney, the ultimate neo-facist
>neo-con, elected as VP and pulling the strings for his cronies!

Sure, run with that. That's the outlook that'll put y'all right back on top.

>Until the Democrats smarten up (don't hold your breath), or until the
>backlash against the neo-cons puts them in the Whitehouse, the neo's
>will continue to run the country for their own gain. Certainly we are
>getting there (i.e. the last House/Senate election) but I'm not sure
>we are at the breaking point. Perhaps if Iraq is still on the plate
>and/or the Republicans haven't once again conned the ignorant public
>into believing that there was some non-financial reason to invade
>Iraq, they might have a shot at it. But, it will be the Republicans
>negative moves, not positive ones by the Democrats, that turn it.

Perhaps you might consider that while the American people are unhappy and
frustrated with the Iraq war, losing is even less popular than continuing to
fight.

But go ahead and run on that one too if you want.

Hey, get Jimmy Carter to endorse your next candidate too, with Michael Moore
sitting next to him. That'll turn the tide.

Ron

Date: 24 May 2007 01:29:33
From: still me
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:13:43 -0400, RonSonic
<ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:

>Exactly wrong - figure out what you stand for, then see if there's anyone
>buying. If not go home.

Actually, marketing training teaches us to figure out what people
want, then build it and sell it to them. Not the other way around i.e.
"build it and they will come".

>>Dislike the neo-cons if you like, but admire their multi-decade
>>marketing agenda and their takeover of the Republican party for their
>>own neo-facist purposes. While they use ideology, they use it only to
>>bring in support. They add in elements of general appeal to bring in
>>additional voters. At the same time, their true goals remain masked
>>from most folks and they even run loser puppet candidates like GWB
>>effectively. Look at their victories - Cheney, the ultimate neo-facist
>>neo-con, elected as VP and pulling the strings for his cronies!
>
>Sure, run with that. That's the outlook that'll put y'all right back on top.

First I've got no axe to grind. I don't need or care to be "on top". I
can live a very happy life regardless of the grand manipulations going
on.

Second, not my admiration for the Republican marketing machine. It's
very, very good. The Democrats should learn from it, but they're too
stuck in ideology.

But third, I'd challenge you if you suggest Cheney isn't the
definition of neo-con, which is in reality neo-facist - the merging of
business and government. (Note: facism has nothing to do with
dictatorship or severe leaders e.g. Hitler or Mussolini).

>Perhaps you might consider that while the American people are unhappy and
>frustrated with the Iraq war, losing is even less popular than continuing to
>fight.
>
>But go ahead and run on that one too if you want.

The "American people" are between a rock and a hard place right now.
They think they got fooled, but the fact is that they fooled
themselves. Since they can't possibly admit fault, they will have to
blame something on someone. Whether that will be Bush and his friends
for fooling them, or the Democrats for "pulling out" and losing will
be decided by the spin salesmen.

>Hey, get Jimmy Carter to endorse your next candidate too, with Michael Moore
>sitting next to him. That'll turn the tide.

"My" candidate? Sorry, I don't have candidates. But, I agree with your
point. Moore is way out there vis-a-vis the 'average' American.
Jimmy's just plain lost it - I'm not sure who he's with anymore. Each
week brings new surprises from him.

>
>Ron

Date: 23 May 2007 21:50:04
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

still me wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:13:43 -0400, RonSonic
> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

{context removed...was politics, campaigns, etc. IIRC}

>> Exactly wrong - figure out what you stand for, then see if there's
>> anyone buying. If not go home.

> Actually, marketing training teaches us to figure out what people
> want, then build it and sell it to them. Not the other way around i.e.
> "build it and they will come".

Is that what the Democrat party is reduced to now? Forget political or even
ideological integrity; just get power. (Doing things like outing a
middle-aged gay man guilty of nothing more serious than harmless flirting
with late-teenage pages...AFTER being intentionally enticed, of course. And
that's one of the more benign things when compared to, say, compromising
national security by leaking classified info. Take your pick of examples of
/that/.)

Interesting (disgusting) times...

Date: 24 May 2007 13:51:15
From: still me
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:50:04 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:

>Is that what the Democrat party is reduced to now? Forget political or even
>ideological integrity; just get power. (Doing things like outing a
>middle-aged gay man guilty of nothing more serious than harmless flirting
>with late-teenage pages...AFTER being intentionally enticed, of course. And
>that's one of the more benign things when compared to, say, compromising
>national security by leaking classified info. Take your pick of examples of
>/that/.)
>
>Interesting (disgusting) times...

I hear you. Last I checked, leaking the name of a Federal Agent was
treason and punishable by the death penalty. Funny, they only gave the
death penalty to Kenny Lay, not Karl Rove.

Date: 24 May 2007 09:22:52
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

still me wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:50:04 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
>> Is that what the Democrat party is reduced to now? Forget political
>> or even ideological integrity; just get power. (Doing things like
>> outing a middle-aged gay man guilty of nothing more serious than
>> harmless flirting with late-teenage pages...AFTER being
>> intentionally enticed, of course. And that's one of the more benign
>> things when compared to, say, compromising national security by
>> leaking classified info. Take your pick of examples of /that/.)
>>
>> Interesting (disgusting) times...
>
> I hear you. Last I checked, leaking the name of a Federal Agent was
> treason and punishable by the death penalty. Funny, they only gave the
> death penalty to Kenny Lay, not Karl Rove.

Moron comment of the month. A) She wasn't covert under the relevant law
(obviously, or someone would be in jail for it); and B) it was RICHARD
ARMITEGE who leaked her name to Bob Novak.

Since Armitege was a Clinton holdover, he wasn't even /threatened/ with
indictment, much less charged with anything.

Thanks for revealing your blatant, blinding bias.

BS (not a bit)

Date: 24 May 2007 13:17:31
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Thu, 24 May 2007 09:22:52 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:

>Moron comment of the month. A) She wasn't covert under the relevant law
>(obviously, or someone would be in jail for it); and B) it was RICHARD
>ARMITEGE who leaked her name to Bob Novak.

>Since Armitege was a Clinton holdover, he wasn't even /threatened/ with
>indictment, much less charged with anything.

"Since"? You think Patrick Fitzgerald or the current US Justice
Department wouldn't go after Dick Armitage because he had served in
the Clinton White House? Put down your crack pipe, turn off the Rush
Limbaugh and try to think clearly for once.

Where do you get your news?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 25 May 2007 22:34:22
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>> Moron comment of the month. A) She wasn't covert under the relevant law
>> (obviously, or someone would be in jail for it); and B) it was RICHARD
>> ARMITEGE who leaked her name to Bob Novak.
>> Since Armitege was a Clinton holdover, he wasn't even /threatened/ with
>> indictment, much less charged with anything.

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> "Since"? You think Patrick Fitzgerald or the current US Justice
> Department wouldn't go after Dick Armitage because he had served in
> the Clinton White House? Put down your crack pipe, turn off the Rush
> Limbaugh and try to think clearly for once.

Fitzgerald knew it was Armitage before he indicted Libby.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 26 May 2007 05:55:36
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Fri, 25 May 2007 22:34:22 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:

>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>> Moron comment of the month. A) She wasn't covert under the relevant law
>>> (obviously, or someone would be in jail for it); and B) it was RICHARD
>>> ARMITEGE who leaked her name to Bob Novak.
>>> Since Armitege was a Clinton holdover, he wasn't even /threatened/ with
>>> indictment, much less charged with anything.
>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> "Since"? You think Patrick Fitzgerald or the current US Justice
>> Department wouldn't go after Dick Armitage because he had served in
>> the Clinton White House? Put down your crack pipe, turn off the Rush
>> Limbaugh and try to think clearly for once.
>
>Fitzgerald knew it was Armitage before he indicted Libby.

I'm arguing about the "since" part -- Fitzgerald did not indict
Armitage because he thought he coudl not convict, not because
Fitzgerald gives Clinton appointees a pass.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 25 May 2007 21:10:21
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

A Muzi wrote:
>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote: (Hey, whaddya know!
>> Flogittodeathlinson STILL removes context from stuff! LOL )

>>> Moron comment of the month. A) She wasn't covert under the
>>> relevant law (obviously, or someone would be in jail for it); and
>>> B) it was RICHARD ARMITEGE who leaked her name to Bob Novak.
>>> Since Armitege was a Clinton holdover, he wasn't even /threatened/
>>> with indictment, much less charged with anything.

> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> "Since"? You think Patrick Fitzgerald or the current US Justice
>> Department wouldn't go after Dick Armitage because he had served in
>> the Clinton White House? Put down your crack pipe, turn off the Rush
>> Limbaugh and try to think clearly for once.

> Fitzgerald knew it was Armitage before he indicted Libby.

Fitzgerald knew it was Armitege AND that there was no underlying crime (just
ask Victoria Tensung -- sp? -- who wrote the frigging law) within a few days
of opening the investigation. Yet he let it go on for /over a year/ --
dragging in people repeatedly, hoping that someone -- /anyone/ -- would slip
up -- while speculation and "hopeful" reporting ran rampant in the media and
lives and careers were ruined. All for one reason: political power.

As for the "current US Justice Department", it doesn't investigate leaks (at
least ones /harmful/ to the US or the Administration); and it lets people
like Sandy Berglar and William Jefferson (Democrat, Louisiana) go free.
(You know, people who REALLY DID commit crimes.)

It's astounding, really.

BS (not)

Date: 29 May 2007 21:10:25
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Fri, 25 May 2007 21:10:21 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:

>there was no underlying crime (just
>ask Victoria Tensung -- sp? -- who wrote the frigging law) within a few days
>of opening the investigation.

Here you go dumbass, about Valerie Plame's cover status

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 26 May 2007 06:02:12
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Fri, 25 May 2007 21:10:21 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:

>Fitzgerald knew it was Armitege AND that there was no underlying crime (just
>ask Victoria Tensung -- sp? -- who wrote the frigging law) within a few days
>of opening the investigation. Yet he let it go on for /over a year/ --
>dragging in people repeatedly, hoping that someone -- /anyone/ -- would slip
>up -- while speculation and "hopeful" reporting ran rampant in the media and
>lives and careers were ruined. All for one reason: political power.
>
>As for the "current US Justice Department", it doesn't investigate leaks (at
>least ones /harmful/ to the US or the Administration); and it lets people
>like Sandy Berglar and William Jefferson (Democrat, Louisiana) go free.

Your theory that Fitzgerald is some sort of Democtratic partisan
makes no sense. He was appointed by a Republican and ran his
investigation, including the part focussing on Libby, while
Republicans controlled congresss.

Are you playing the "persecuted Reblicans" card again, even when it is
the the Republicans controlling the portion of goverment doing it? Is
the big bad liberal media so powerful that it forces everyone to be
anti-neocon, and the threat of Democrats someday coming to power so
strong that every thing that hurts a Bush crony is inherently
partisan?

Was good working for the Liberal cabal when he called Kennyboy Lay
home while letter liberals stil live?????

On Victoria Toesning, she is simply wrong - other senior government
officials involved in the creating and enforcing the law, as well as
senior officials at the CIA have said so. She is a major partisan,
while there are people of several political persuasions (including
nonpartisan) opposed to her interpretation of the law.

>(You know, people who REALLY DID commit crimes.)
Scooter Libby lied to Federal officials. That is a crime.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 24 May 2007 06:00:45
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Wed, 23 May 2007 21:50:04 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:

>still me wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:13:43 -0400, RonSonic
>> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>{context removed...was politics, campaigns, etc. IIRC}
>
>>> Exactly wrong - figure out what you stand for, then see if there's
>>> anyone buying. If not go home.
>
>> Actually, marketing training teaches us to figure out what people
>> want, then build it and sell it to them. Not the other way around i.e.
>> "build it and they will come".
>
>Is that what the Democrat party is reduced to now? Forget political or even
>ideological integrity; just get power.

Well, they haven't gone that route. The Republicans did in the last
two elections -- as the widespread corruption and lack of attention to
real conservative ideals (individual liberty and limited government
spending) shows.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 24 May 2007 13:48:22
From: still me
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Thu, 24 May 2007 06:00:45 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

>>
>>Is that what the Democrat party is reduced to now? Forget political or even
>>ideological integrity; just get power.
>
>Well, they haven't gone that route. The Republicans did in the last
>two elections -- as the widespread corruption and lack of attention to
>real conservative ideals (individual liberty and limited government
>spending) shows.
>
>--
>JT
My point exactly. The power neo-cons have no interest in real
conservative values, they pander to them only to sell themselves into
power. It's neo-facism that they really want - and they are getting
it.

Date: 23 May 2007 09:05:04
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Wed, 23 May 2007 12:56:39 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com >
wrote:
[some stuff snipped]

You write some accurate stuff about marketing in politics, but your
underlying statements about particular Democratic polticitions being
politically out the American mainstream or very liberal are simply not
true. You're using the terms liberal in a perverted way that buys
into, reflects and supports lies and exaggeration made by the
neo-conts
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 21 May 2007 22:31:34
From:
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

John Forrest Tomlinson writes:

>> He's not in the mainstream that you define but he's way closer to
>> what the average joe wants.

> The average Joe wants tax cuts for the rich, corruption in
> government, and losing a war? And exporting jobs and producing more
> terrorism?

> I did not know that.

For the average Joe, cause and effect are too distant, that's why he
believes cutting taxes, regardless of for whom (trickle down theory)
is good. That we travel on "republican roads" full of holes and
freeways whose concrete slabs destroy our cars (when we can drive
fast), and minimal public transportation in the metropolitan SF area
(that's for poor folks) passes him up.

Re-elect those guys. The cost of one day in Iraq could finance our
Dumbarton rail crossing between east and west SF bay, but for our tax
base it's too expensive.....

Arnoldt is trying to balance his buget, meaning no money for HSR (high
speed rail) planning.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=321518&page=63

Jobst Brandt

Date: 21 May 2007 23:55:44
From: Bill
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson writes:
>
>>> He's not in the mainstream that you define but he's way closer to
>>> what the average joe wants.
>
>> The average Joe wants tax cuts for the rich, corruption in
>> government, and losing a war? And exporting jobs and producing more
>> terrorism?
>
>> I did not know that.
>
> For the average Joe, cause and effect are too distant, that's why he
> believes cutting taxes, regardless of for whom (trickle down theory)
> is good. That we travel on "republican roads" full of holes and
> freeways whose concrete slabs destroy our cars (when we can drive
> fast), and minimal public transportation in the metropolitan SF area
> (that's for poor folks) passes him up.
>
> Re-elect those guys. The cost of one day in Iraq could finance our
> Dumbarton rail crossing between east and west SF bay, but for our tax
> base it's too expensive.....
>
> Arnoldt is trying to balance his buget, meaning no money for HSR (high
> speed rail) planning.
>
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=321518&page=63
>
> Jobst Brandt

I have to give Arnold some credit since he inherited a mess to begin
with. If the war in Iraq had not been started we might all have solar
powered houses by now and a backup windmill on the roof. Half a Trillion
dollars could buy a hell of a lot of alternative energy and research.
Bush does not appear to know that he is supposed to be making the United
States a better place and not just throwing money at another Viet Nam
situation. With his lack of comprehension maybe it is better that he
doesn't mess with the economy and stays diverted.
Bill Baka

Date: 22 May 2007 05:26:26
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:55:44 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:

>. If the war in Iraq had not been started we might all have solar
>powered houses by now and a backup windmill on the roof. Half a Trillion
>dollars could buy a hell of a lot of alternative energy and research.

I just can't understand why you want to embolden the enemy.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 22 May 2007 17:40:32
From: Bill
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:55:44 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> . If the war in Iraq had not been started we might all have solar
>> powered houses by now and a backup windmill on the roof. Half a Trillion
>> dollars could buy a hell of a lot of alternative energy and research.
>
> I just can't understand why you want to embolden the enemy.

I don't.
The question is whether Iraq was our enemy or their own enemy.
9/11 was Saudi Arabians according to what I have heard.
Iraq and Saddam were targets of opportunity.
Afghanistan seems to have been the terrorist base.
So,
Who 'exactly' is the enemy?
I think all Muslims now hate us so we have managed to increase the
numbers of the enemy.
My pet 'theory' is that 9/11 was an expression of anger at the USA over
electing another 'Bush'.
It might never have happened if Gore had won.
Just a guess, but we have lost more in terms of money and Constitutional
rights than any sane person could rationalize, Dem or Repub.
Bill Baka (Sitting on the fence and watching).

Date: 20 May 2007 22:19:30
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On 2007-05-20, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:34:30 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:06:22 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>WTF does this "out of the mainstream" mean?
>>>--
>>>JT

>>The main part of any stream (river) typically runs in the center. So
>>do people who want to get elected President.

> George Bush was not in the American mainstream and he got elected.

Sure, but remember G. W. Bush was elected by the Supreme Court, not the
general population or even the electoral college.

--

John (john@os2.dhs.org)

Date: 21 May 2007 08:57:59
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

In article <slrnf523u2.u7m.john@vector.os2.dhs.org >,
John Thompson <john@vector.os2.dhs.org > wrote:

> On 2007-05-20, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:34:30 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:06:22 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> >><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>WTF does this "out of the mainstream" mean? -- JT
>
> >>The main part of any stream (river) typically runs in the center.
> >>So do people who want to get elected President.
>
> > George Bush was not in the American mainstream and he got elected.
>
> Sure, but remember G. W. Bush was elected by the Supreme Court, not
> the general population or even the electoral college.

Once, not twice. The American people re-inflicted GWB on themselves,
again proving that in a democracy the people get the government they
deserve.

Date: 21 May 2007 04:16:44
From: Bill
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

John Thompson wrote:
> On 2007-05-20, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:34:30 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:06:22 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> WTF does this "out of the mainstream" mean?
>>>> --
>>>> JT
>
>>> The main part of any stream (river) typically runs in the center. So
>>> do people who want to get elected President.
>
>> George Bush was not in the American mainstream and he got elected.
>
> Sure, but remember G. W. Bush was elected by the Supreme Court, not the
> general population or even the electoral college.
>
Nobody I know voted for him the first time and I don't think the results
of the voting were what made it to the news. His brother Jeb was the
governor of Floriduh, after all, and with the families CIA connections
how hard could it have been to fix the election.
I do think the electoral college needs to be re-thought for modern times
though.
Bill Baka

Date: 20 May 2007 13:18:46
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

In article <3et0535pgr1c2qckuoeg3f5lv3sm2imtjm@4ax.com >,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:34:30 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:06:22 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> ><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>WTF does this "out of the mainstream" mean? -- JT
> >
> >The main part of any stream (river) typically runs in the center. So
> >do people who want to get elected President.
>
> George Bush was not in the American mainstream and he got elected.

And had an 80% approval rating for a while, which is as close to
mainstream as a President can get; the last I heard it had sunk to
26-28%. I think you underestimate the appeal of conservatism in a
country where it's fashionable for self-identified groups of people to
persuade themselves that they are under siege. Politicians- or at least
political advisors- love to exploit this tendency by skillful use of
wedge issues. But when that is exploited cynically, it comes back you
bite you. We saw the consequences of that for the Democrats a few years
back, now we are seeing the price the Republicans are paying.

There is not a single political "center" in the U.S. In statistical
terms, it's a trimodal distribution: a peak on the left, a peak on the
right and a peak in the center. Each of the peaks, if more motivated
than the other groups, can determine the outcome of an election. The
left and right peaks are always disproportionately represented in U.S.
elections because they are simply more motivated than the middle peak.
In the past 25 years, that's especially been the "God, guns and guts
made America great" crowd.

Date: 20 May 2007 17:24:57
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Sun, 20 May 2007 13:18:46 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:

>In article <3et0535pgr1c2qckuoeg3f5lv3sm2imtjm@4ax.com>,
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:34:30 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:06:22 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>> ><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>WTF does this "out of the mainstream" mean? -- JT
>> >
>> >The main part of any stream (river) typically runs in the center. So
>> >do people who want to get elected President.
>>
>> George Bush was not in the American mainstream and he got elected.
>
>And had an 80% approval rating for a while, which is as close to
>mainstream as a President can get; the last I heard it had sunk to
>26-28%. I think you underestimate the appeal of conservatism in a
>country where it's fashionable for self-identified groups of people to
>persuade themselves that they are under siege.

No, I think Bush might be viewed as conservative, which makes him
appealing, but is not actually conservative. How can someone who
spends so much much and is so opposed to indiviudal liberty be
conservative?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 21 May 2007 19:12:12
From: still me
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Sun, 20 May 2007 17:24:57 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

>
>No, I think Bush might be viewed as conservative, which makes him
>appealing, but is not actually conservative. How can someone who
>spends so much much and is so opposed to indiviudal liberty be
>conservative?

He's a neo-con. They are centrist conservative socially for the most
part but they lack any fiscal or constitutional conservative
credentials. They are in it only for their neo-facist goals of using
government to promote their business goals for them and their friends.

Date: 22 May 2007 06:50:32
From: Bill
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

still me wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2007 17:24:57 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>> No, I think Bush might be viewed as conservative, which makes him
>> appealing, but is not actually conservative. How can someone who
>> spends so much much and is so opposed to indiviudal liberty be
>> conservative?
>
> He's a neo-con. They are centrist conservative socially for the most
> part but they lack any fiscal or constitutional conservative
> credentials. They are in it only for their neo-facist goals of using
> government to promote their business goals for them and their friends.
>
Thanks.
Just about what I was thinking. I can't get George Orwell and 1984 out
of my head when I think about Bush #1, and #2.
#2 and #1 worst presidents in my life time.
Bill Baka

Date: 20 May 2007 20:47:43
From: Bill
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2007 13:18:46 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <3et0535pgr1c2qckuoeg3f5lv3sm2imtjm@4ax.com>,
>> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:34:30 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 15:06:22 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>>>> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> WTF does this "out of the mainstream" mean? -- JT
>>>> The main part of any stream (river) typically runs in the center. So
>>>> do people who want to get elected President.
>>> George Bush was not in the American mainstream and he got elected.
>> And had an 80% approval rating for a while, which is as close to
>> mainstream as a President can get; the last I heard it had sunk to
>> 26-28%. I think you underestimate the appeal of conservatism in a
>> country where it's fashionable for self-identified groups of people to
>> persuade themselves that they are under siege.
>
> No, I think Bush might be viewed as conservative, which makes him
> appealing, but is not actually conservative. How can someone who
> spends so much much and is so opposed to indiviudal liberty be
> conservative?

How can Bush be appealing to anyone, conservative or not? He has done
virtually nothing for our country and only seems capable of sending more
troops in harms' way. This irritates me no end since I went through the
Viet Nam debacle and almost got into the Army, but got turned down, by
way of too many traffic tickets, and "Lack of respect for authority".
The National Guard was a safe haven back then and now he is sending
homeland security troops in harms' way, even though he used it to duck
service.
Does anybody else smell a rat.
I do want him to stay healthy until the election, because God only knows
what havoc Cheney could do as president.
I support the troops, send Bush over with a gun.
His pants might get a bit wet, but he could show them what a man he is.
Bill Baka

Date: 21 May 2007 08:59:33
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

In article <pD84i.1387$C96.912@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:

> I do want him to stay healthy until the election, because God only
> knows what havoc Cheney could do as president.

Impeach Cheney first.

Date: 21 May 2007 09:17:54
From: Bill
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <pD84i.1387$C96.912@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I do want him to stay healthy until the election, because God only
>> knows what havoc Cheney could do as president.
>
> Impeach Cheney first.

Good point. Of course he is the first to hunt lawyers for sport.
;<)
Bill Baka

Date: 17 May 2007 12:45:01
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 17, 9:26 pm, don Gabacho <jpast...@nettaxi.com > wrote:
> On May 17, 4:47 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The cost doesn't sound totally outrageous to me. It would be nice if
> > it were cheaper, but just think about how much even car reapirs can
> > be!
>
> Who have the a similiar problem: the outrageous costs of supplies
> (parts). When I say the cost of health plans, it is not merely the
> hospitals and doctors grossly overcharging but also the suppliers and
> pharmaceutical companies.
>
> Nonetheless, would you like your auto insurance company to agree to a
> $3,000 bill afther which some $260 already came out of your pocket and
> of which you will still be billed some 20% for essentially having
> taken a picture of an obviously broken car part, say, "yes the part
> (as you already know) is broken", "it will (as you already know) fix
> itself, "here's a rag" and "no I can not instruct you in how to use
> the rag"?
>
> That is essentially what happened.

That is more or less what happened to my wife too, but with more
beuracratic run-around thrown in. The immediate out of pocket was less
than yours but it comes at the expense of much higher taxes and fees.
I pay way more in these taxes that if I paid for my own private
insurance. I can afford insurance, while some people cannot, and this
is the main problem. The difficult thing is to find some way to get
coverage to those who lack it without ruining it for everyone else in
the process.

> People have been breaking collar-bones at least since they lived in
> caves. I'm sure someone, somewhere, even painted a picture of a broken-
> collar bone on a cave wall to show someone who else must have had
> something so even visually obvious as a broken collar bone.
>
> And even then they knew all they could do was use either of two kinds
> of vines (slings and drink lots of milk).
>
> Is it really fair to apply the same rates to someone who has suffered,
> say, only a bad scrape to his arm that is charged for someone who is
> having to resew a lost arm back in place?
>
> A broken-collar bone isn't rocket science!
>
> Say the orthopedist did spend some "$1,000,000" not to learn how to
> strap even a sling. At the rate he was charging $225/minute, and the
> numbers of people sent by insurance companies lining up to be received
> in any and all of his six treatment rooms all day long and simply
> walking from one room to to another: how much money do you think he
> was grossing?
>
> There are 480 minutes in a working day and $225/minute is only one of
> his rates. It goes up if there were actually a cast involved!

Indeed. I do not dispute that some doctors and I assume others in the
mediacl business are raking it in. I think this has a lot to do with
the fact that so many people have insurance and don't really care
about the actual cost of the care. So people are not cost conscious
when they chose medical services, but they are when they chose mediacl
insurance. This has the unfortunate side effect of driving up the
costs of medical services, and driving down the willingness of
insurers to pay for them.

Joseph

Date: 17 May 2007 12:41:45
From: don Gabacho
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 17, 12:08 am, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote:

> ROTFL You do a stupid thing (and apparently can't afford health insurance?)
> and it's Bush's fault. Classic.

Affording "health insurance" nowadays is grossly taking food out of
the mouths of even children.

As far as Bush's "fault"?

While he tells the American people that they have to get their own
health plans, do you see him trust busting or throwing any of the
highway robbers in jail?

To the contrary, its been all over the news lately that his federal
prosecutor (and after his Federal Drug and Food Administration
approved the drug) of one pharmaceutical company, whose people
deliberately lied about their highly addictive pain-killer, had less
than 1% of the six-billion dollars they've made off of addicting
people so far.

Not one of the person from the corporation spent even one day in jail
even while thousands of addicts are now in jail having bought the
addictive drug at even much lowwer street prices!!!

And how much do you think that corporation paid into Bush's campaign
funds?

Do you recall when Carter, beginning his campaign for Presidency, even
whispered he would go after the AMA! You guys went after his head with
a hatchet!

Date: 17 May 2007 12:26:55
From: don Gabacho
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 17, 4:47 am, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
<joseph.santanie...@gmail.com > wrote:

> The cost doesn't sound totally outrageous to me. It would be nice if
> it were cheaper, but just think about how much even car reapirs can
> be!

Who have the a similiar problem: the outrageous costs of supplies
(parts). When I say the cost of health plans, it is not merely the
hospitals and doctors grossly overcharging but also the suppliers and
pharmaceutical companies.

Nonetheless, would you like your auto insurance company to agree to a
$3,000 bill afther which some $260 already came out of your pocket and
of which you will still be billed some 20% for essentially having
taken a picture of an obviously broken car part, say, "yes the part
(as you already know) is broken", "it will (as you already know) fix
itself, "here's a rag" and "no I can not instruct you in how to use
the rag"?

That is essentially what happened.

People have been breaking collar-bones at least since they lived in
caves. I'm sure someone, somewhere, even painted a picture of a broken-
collar bone on a cave wall to show someone who else must have had
something so even visually obvious as a broken collar bone.

And even then they knew all they could do was use either of two kinds
of vines (slings and drink lots of milk).

Is it really fair to apply the same rates to someone who has suffered,
say, only a bad scrape to his arm that is charged for someone who is
having to resew a lost arm back in place?

A broken-collar bone isn't rocket science!

Say the orthopedist did spend some "$1,000,000" not to learn how to
strap even a sling. At the rate he was charging $225/minute, and the
numbers of people sent by insurance companies lining up to be received
in any and all of his six treatment rooms all day long and simply
walking from one room to to another: how much money do you think he
was grossing?

There are 480 minutes in a working day and $225/minute is only one of
his rates. It goes up if there were actually a cast involved!

Date: 17 May 2007 11:52:10
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 17, 12:24 pm, Lou Holtman <lholremovet...@planet.nl > wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 May 2007 11:52:48 +0200, Lou Holtman
> > <lholremovet...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
> >> No insurance at all? What would happen if one of your family members
> >> needed, and I mean really needed (car accident or something), a $50000
> >> surgery?
>
> > They'd either pas the cost to someone else by ignoring bills, go
> > bankrupt trying to pay or suffer w/improper car for being unable to
> > pay. I'm probably forgetting other unpleasant "options."
>
> > There are tens of millions of people in a similar situation right now
> > in the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
>
> Yes that's what I thought. I had they impression that Joseph preferred
> this situation to that in Norway. It's easy to come up with an example
> where this is true, but you have to look at overall picture. Here in the
> Netherlands health insurance is mandatory for everybody older than 18
> years and there is a lot of complaining, but I think overall this is a
> better situation than you have in the USA.
>
> Lou

I wasn't thinking so much of which system I prefer, but rather that a
potential solution is much more complicated that people think. Norway
and the Scandinavian coutries are often touted as models of how to do
social services, but I have first hand experience showing that these
services are FAR from satisfactory. This only shows that it is a
difficult problem and that blaming people who oppose that sort of
thing politically isn't the answer. People who support nationalized
health (or some similar scheme) in the US are generally left leaning.
They genreally think that the reason the US does not have a
nationalized health system is because of their political adversaries,
and if they would only get with the program and vote for a
nationalized health system everything would be just fine. They are
mistaken. The system would still suck (potentially worse) but in a
different way. Norway has a healthy, homgeneous population, bags of
money, a high standard of living without extremes of income
differences, and more or less across the board political support for
government run social programs, but the health system still is
unsatisfactory. Why would anyone think that the US would be able to
implement a superior system? I belive that most opponents of
nationalized health in the US (like me) are opposed not because we
don't want poor people to get health care, but because we think that
implementing such a system will never work, and will just become a
huge money pit that will be impossible to get rid of or fix in the
future.

Joseph

Date: 17 May 2007 11:38:06
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 17, 12:11 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 11:52:48 +0200, Lou Holtman
>
> <lholremovet...@planet.nl> wrote:
> >No insurance at all? What would happen if one of your family members
> >needed, and I mean really needed (car accident or something), a $50000
> >surgery?
>
> They'd either pas the cost to someone else by ignoring bills, go
> bankrupt trying to pay or suffer w/improper car for being unable to
> pay. I'm probably forgetting other unpleasant "options."

Exactly. In a way the high prices paid by insured people subsidise the
ignored bills of those without insurance and without the means to pay.
The problem is figuring out a "system" that adresses this without
falling into the pitfalls of indifferent care, long waiting lists, etc
that seem to plauge all the nationalized health services I've heard
of.

> There are tens of millions of people in a similar situation right now
> in the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

While I don't dispute that, the figures of the uninsured also include
people only temporarily uninsured (a potentially bad situation of
course), and those that chose not to be insured. The problem of people
who want insurance but don't have it is I think overestimated in terms
of numbers. This of course means nothing if you happen to be one of
those people, but nonetheless I think the crisis is overblown. In
other words it's a complicated problem.

Joseph

Date: 18 May 2007 15:16:27
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

In article <1179427085.960698.43520@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
"joseph.santaniello@gmail.com" <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote:

> While I don't dispute that, the figures of the uninsured also include
> people only temporarily uninsured (a potentially bad situation of
> course), and those that chose not to be insured. The problem of people
> who want insurance but don't have it is I think overestimated in terms
> of numbers. This of course means nothing if you happen to be one of
> those people, but nonetheless I think the crisis is overblown. In
> other words it's a complicated problem.

The government estimates of uninsured people in the United States is
45,000,000. That's 14.5% of the population in a nation that is the most
prosperous in the history of the world. Do you think that is an
"overblown" crisis?

In the United States we pay twice as much per capita for health care
than countries with nationalized health care. In 2006, that was
$2,100,000,000,000 (2.1 trillion) or 16% of GDP. In 2016, the
expenditure for health care is forecast to be $4,100,000,000,000 (4.1
trillion) or 20% of GDP.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_45615.html

The creation of a nationalized health care system to replace the current
bureaucracies of Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and the Veteran's
Administration health programs would be (relatively) easy. It could
benefit from greater economies of scale and reduce the cost of
bureaucratic overhead.

The creation of a nationalized health care system to replace the
horribly broken mishmash of private insurers would be more difficult.
The biggest hurdle has nothing to do with policy but with philosophy of
government. Now, philosophy of government is a very important
discussion and one that is an essential ongoing debate in a democracy.
But that is a discussion that must actually arrive at conclusions and
enact them, as political philosophy doesn't have the benefit of being an
abstract ivory tower endeavor with little effect on the daily lives of
millions of people. Political philosophies affect the lives of everyone
every day.

Having worked in health care for 26 years, I am convinced that the
benefits of a nationalized health care system would far outweigh the
problems. I've delineated what I see as the benefits in an earlier post
and no need to repeat it here. The problems that exist now are huge and
growing every day, and will economically cripple the U.S. within the
lifetimes of almost everyone under 50 years old, possibly almost
everyone under 60.

Date: 17 May 2007 20:37:53
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

>> <lholremovet...@planet.nl> wrote:
>>> No insurance at all? What would happen if one of your family members
>>> needed, and I mean really needed (car accident or something), a $50000
>>> surgery?
>> They'd either pas the cost to someone else by ignoring bills, go
>> bankrupt trying to pay or suffer w/improper car for being unable to
>> pay. I'm probably forgetting other unpleasant "options."

>> On Thu, 17 May 2007 11:52:48 +0200, Lou Holtman
> Exactly. In a way the high prices paid by insured people subsidise the
> ignored bills of those without insurance and without the means to pay.
> The problem is figuring out a "system" that adresses this without
> falling into the pitfalls of indifferent care, long waiting lists, etc
> that seem to plauge all the nationalized health services I've heard
> of.

> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>> There are tens of millions of people in a similar situation right now
>> in the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> While I don't dispute that, the figures of the uninsured also include
> people only temporarily uninsured (a potentially bad situation of
> course), and those that chose not to be insured. The problem of people
> who want insurance but don't have it is I think overestimated in terms
> of numbers. This of course means nothing if you happen to be one of
> those people, but nonetheless I think the crisis is overblown. In
> other words it's a complicated problem.

Exactly. In Wisconsin, a state medical care program for the indigent,
touted as a solution for up to 100,000 people, garnered a whopping 135
enrollees after 2 years. In Illinois, similar numbers.

There are no snappy magic-wand solutions and many who proffer same do
not allow for the broad spectrum of interests involved in the problem.
hint: "health care consumers" is not a homogeneous group.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 17 May 2007 15:27:10
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On 17 May 2007 11:38:06 -0700, "joseph.santaniello@gmail.com"
<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote:

>While I don't dispute that, the figures of the uninsured also include
>people only temporarily uninsured (a potentially bad situation of
>course), and those that chose not to be insured. The problem of people
>who want insurance but don't have it is I think overestimated in terms
>of numbers. This of course means nothing if you happen to be one of
>those people, but nonetheless I think the crisis is overblown.

Choose not to be insured? Overblown? Wow.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 17 May 2007 08:55:12
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 16, 10:08 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me > wrote:
> don Gabacho wrote:
> > Yup, it was a beut!
>
> > Riding along on a sidewalk while carrying a ton of groceries in my
> > rear baskets, I spotted a brand-new computer and a power pack set
> > alongside a dumpster for the taking.
>
> > I stopped my bike, leaned over, grabbed the the battery pack's cable
> > and heaved its weight up. It was worth 350 bucks as I considered just
> > dumping the groceries to make room.
>
> > But, alas, the front wheel had been turned sideways. Just as I got the
> > 50lb component on the crossbar the wheel decided to suddenly roll.
>
> > With the weight of the bike itself plus the groceries pushing and the
> > weight of the component pulling, I was slapped down so hard on the
> > pavement to break my collar-bone.
>
> > Lesson 1: Never reach for or pickup anything while still astride a
> > bicycle. Always get off the bike first.
>
> > Lesson 2: The medical costs! Nearly $3,000 including one charge equal
> > to over $225/minute by an orthepedist who had not only done nothing
> > (not even x-rays) but, when asked to instruct on just how to fasten
> > the second strap of a simple sling, responded "I don't know."
>
> > Yup: "A hard lesson(s) learned.
>
> > Isn't Bush's health care plan wonderful?
>
> ROTFL You do a stupid thing (and apparently can't afford health insurance?)
> and it's Bush's fault. Classic.

Yeah, those people that criticize the US health care plan. What stupid
commies. American health care system is great. The 50 million
americans that don't have access to health care are all lazy
unemployed commies expecting the goverment to pick up the tab.
American health care is the best in the world.

And so is the war.We saved the world from terrorists. Iraq is much
better now that it was before. people are safer, happier, wealthier
and live in true democracy in Iraq. Iraq is now a beautiful peaceful
place and news that the war is failing and that Iraq is colapsing are
false. also, Bush made Afganistan a much better place. It is peaceful
and tranquil. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The liberal media
is all controlled by commies and they lie about Iraq and Afganistan.
The only true source of news is Fox. They are truthful and objective
and they do serious invastigative reporting.

And those people that criticize Bush for being ignorant and
inarticulate are themselves a bunch of ignorant commies. Bush is well
spoken, articulate, well read and sophisticated. He makes all his
decisions after carefully researching all the facts and presenting
them very eloquently. Only the ignorant, left wing, ill informed media
would spin Bush's elloquence as poor.

Andres (picking up for our absent friend)

Date: 17 May 2007 08:39:33
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 16, 4:11 pm, "Crescentius Vespasianus" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
> > Lesson 1: Never reach for or pickup anything while still astride a
> > bicycle. Always get off the bike first.
>
> ------------
> had a similar experience when I first started riding. Something fell off
> the handlebar (maybe a light, can't really remember) I tried reaching for it
> and of course crashed. The pain was intense, although I was lucky I only
> got some bruises and road rash. I've never reached for anything sense.

Same thing happened to me about 20 years ago. I was ridding no hands
drinking a big gulp. I went over a bump. Instead of reaching for the
bars and control the bike, I tried to hold on to the drink. I was a
poor student and the big gulp was an incredible 60 cents or so. I
broke a bone on my wrist. While I didn't have insurance and that was
during Regan, my uncle, an orthopedist, casted me for free. Because my
only means of transportation was a bike, I kept cutting the cast to
free my fingers. Needles to say that the bone never healed properly
and I have one wrist that is slighlty bigger than the other.

I also had an ultra cheap benotto that I had gotten in Cd Juarez,
Mexico across the river from El Paso, Texas. The wheels where tacoed
in that accident but i took them to a little shop in mexico and the
mechanic trued them for virtually nothing. I rode that oversized
Benotto (60 cm and I really ride a 54) throughout my college days. It
was hi tensile steel. Once I patched a tube with a bunch of packing
tape. I learned to be a bike mechanic with that bike.

Andres

Date: 17 May 2007 04:19:02
From: datakoll@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 16, 8:08 pm, "Pat" <P...@starrynight.com > wrote:
> > Lesson 1: Never reach for or pickup anything while still astride a
> > bicycle. Always get off the bike first.
>
> A corollary to that is: always unclip your feet when you stop your bicycle
> to look at something.

RIGHT!! GOOD THING YOU DIDN'T "TWIST" YOUR BACK
always stretch before riding for just this category of injury-unusual
movements.
stretchging,-see stretching in library-loosens 'all' muscles so there
are fewer unusual movements to strain and malfunction
AND THIS INCLUDES THE BRAIN!
maybe.

Date: 17 May 2007 01:47:25
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 16, 7:49 pm, don Gabacho <jpast...@nettaxi.com > wrote:

> With the weight of the bike itself plus the groceries pushing and the
> weight of the component pulling, I was slapped down so hard on the
> pavement to break my collar-bone.

> Lesson 2: The medical costs! Nearly $3,000 including one charge equal
> to over $225/minute by an orthepedist who had not only done nothing
> (not even x-rays) but, when asked to instruct on just how to fasten
> the second strap of a simple sling, responded "I don't know."
>
> Yup: "A hard lesson(s) learned.
>
> Isn't Bush's health care plan wonderful?

Sorry to hear you were injured, and I hope your recovery is speedy.

The cost doesn't sound totally outrageous to me. It would be nice if
it were cheaper, but just think about how much even car reapirs can
be!

I lived in LA for a while without insurance for me or my family. When
we would take our infant son to the doctor, when they learned we had
no insurance they often gave us a (significantly) discounted rate, so
these rates are not cut in stone.

For a grass-is-always-greener take on this, here is the story of my
wife breaking her collarbone here in Norway where health care is
nationalized and "free":

We were visiting her mother who lives in a town nearby with a
hospital. Playing in the leaves with our kids, she fell and broke her
collarbone. She didn't know it at the time, and thought it just hurt
alot, so we went back to he parents house to take it easy. Later as
the pain increased we went to the hospital, where we were informed
that as this was not an emergency we would need a referal from her
regular doctor for any specialist care. At the hospital we never got
past the waiting room. We then had to drive home (to our house 40km
away) and try to contact her regular doctor who is in our town (she is
only allowed to see the doctor she is assigned to, so another local
doctor isn't an option). The doctor's office (a nationalized clinic)
closes at 3pm to she had to wait until the next day (good thing it
wasn't a Friday!). First thing we were there, her doctor looked at her
shoulder for about 2 seconds and said, "your collarbone is broken" and
she filled out a requisition slip for x-rays and a referral to an
othepedist. Now we could drive back to the hospital for the x-rays
which went pretty quickly. As for the orthepedist, they said, "you'll
get a letter in the mail telling you your appointment date". This was
too much so after a lot of back and forth we finally got someone to
look at it who was not an orthepedist, who also confirmed it was most
likely a broken colalrbone, and said "go home and take it easy. Use a
sling if it helps. It'll take a while to get better." We then had the
privilege of paying our $40 co-pay (each step of the way we paid, and
for the x-rays we had to pay first). They didn't have any slings, so
we had to go buy one at the hospital pharmacy, and the slings they had
were just a square of cloth like in a cartoon. No fancy straps and it
cost $30. The letter came about 2 weeks later giving an apointment
date 3 weeks even later.

I would have glady paid $3000 cash to have had her treatment done in a
normal sane fasion. As it is I paid WAY more than this between 50%
incometax, 25% VAT on everything, huge fees for goverment services,
and $8/gal gas. Norway is rolling in money from oil sales, and has a
very left leaning goverment with a strong desire to have social
services be nationalized, so they have basically what left leaning
folks in the US would call a dream scenario with the common political
will to have these type of services, and the money to do it, but it
still doesn't work well. I have been on a waiting list for over a year
for varicose vein surgery, and I have it pretty bad with sores and the
whole bit. I'm sure there are plenty of people worse off than me
waiting years for treatment they really need.

A nationalized health service sounds nice, but is a complicated thing
that nobody seems to have figured out how to do properly yet, so
blaming it on Bush isn't really usefull.

Joseph

Date: 18 May 2007 20:37:00
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

joseph.santanie...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Private insurance companies and medical clinics have incentives to
> streamline their bureaucracies yet the bureaucracy and overhead is
> still huge. Why would you think a government program that lacked these
> incentives would be any better?

Private insurers have an incentive to maximize profit... which is not
the same as minimizing bureaucracy, if you have the power to rig
certain terms and conditions to your advantage. As I see it, it's in
the interest of insurers to make the process of getting medical
treatment as expensive as possible, because that will make sure that
as many people as possible see insurance coverage as a must-have item
(can't afford to go without). Because their actuarial scheme takes
into account the actual cost of treatment, plus administrative costs,
plus profit margin, that means the more everything else costs, the
more profit they get.

The reason that no competing insurers cut their costs to get a bigger
market share is because that would reduce the size of the pie that
insurers get a piece of. It the same reason that no cell phone
providers offer terms like what land-line long distance providers
offer (use only as much as you want, pay for only what you use).
Because if one of them offered that kind of service, all of them would
have to do so to remain competitive. Customers would then pay less
for what they got, and the gross revenue for all the commercial
players in the business would dwindle. Thus it is in the interest of
all the various medical insurers to make everything as expensive as
people can possibly withstand.

I think what JFT wants, what I want, and what a whole lot of other
Americans want, is a medical system that covers everybody (because
that's the right thing to do) without making a lot of private
businesses rich at the taxpayers' expense (because that's the wrong
thing to do). It isn't a fair or worthy use of public money to
guarantee private profits. But getting everybody the medical
attention they need is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing
with public money.

Cubans get better health care, by just about any measure, than
Americans do. And they get it at a small fraction of what we pay.
It's not because they don't have an onerous bureaucracy-- I'm sure
they do-- but it probably has something to do with their taking the
profiteers out of the supply chain.

Chalo

Date: 19 May 2007 04:38:35
From: still me
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On 18 May 2007 20:37:00 -0700, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:

>I think what JFT wants, what I want, and what a whole lot of other
>Americans want, is a medical system that covers everybody (because
>that's the right thing to do)

Yes. Also likely less expensive overall.

>without making a lot of private
>businesses rich at the taxpayers' expense (because that's the wrong
>thing to do). It isn't a fair or worthy use of public money to
>guarantee private profits.

Oh, wait, you just said something bad. Next thing we know you'll want
there to _not_ be a law preventing the US gov't from negotiating drug
prices for Medicare; you'll expect Americans to be able to buy
Canadian drugs packaged by US drug companies and sold for half the
price; etc. After that you might be whining about oil companies who
rape us getting giant tax subsidies and $400b wars intended to grab
oil supplies for private profit. You're obviously not a patriot.

>But getting everybody the medical
>attention they need is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing
>with public money.

Ya think? Naw, let's let people keep paying $10K a year for $400 worth
of annual doctors visits. It only seems fair.

Date: 18 May 2007 19:42:14
From: don Gabacho
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 18, 7:38 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> > <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ever go to the DMV or the local Assessor's office?

Ever go to a Mexican post office?

If you want to pick-up anything you can wait for weeks until it occurs
to you to pay a little something.

On the bright side though: On the very day I'd leave going back to the
states I'd mail a postcard to myself to my address in the states
saying: "Hi John, Having a wondeful time in Isla, wish you were here!"

The postcards would arrive about three months later just in time to
remind me it was time to go on vacation again.

Date: 18 May 2007 09:34:57
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 18, 2:06 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On 18 May 2007 04:55:25 -0700, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>
> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >But I know that as bad
> >as the current system is in terms of high costs from the overhead of
> >paperwork and bureaucracy, it would only be worse under a government
> >run program.
>
> That's why I don't take your comments on politics seriously -- you
> start with an extreme bias on some things like that.

Thinking that government run programs are in general wastefull and
less efficient that private enterprise is not an extreme bias!

Private insurance companies and medical clinics have incentives to
streamline their bureaucracies yet the bureaucracy and overhead is
still huge. Why would you think a government program that lacked these
incentives would be any better?

Someday I'll visit NY and we can go take a long ride to Montauk (no
hills please) and we can argue about this for hours!

Joseph

Date: 18 May 2007 19:22:21
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On 18 May 2007 09:34:57 -0700, "joseph.santaniello@gmail.com"
<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote:

>On May 18, 2:06 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
>wrote:
>> On 18 May 2007 04:55:25 -0700, "joseph.santanie...@gmail.com"
>>
>> <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >But I know that as bad
>> >as the current system is in terms of high costs from the overhead of
>> >paperwork and bureaucracy, it would only be worse under a government
>> >run program.
>>
>> That's why I don't take your comments on politics seriously -- you
>> start with an extreme bias on some things like that.
>
>Thinking that government run programs are in general wastefull and
>less efficient that private enterprise is not an extreme bias!

Thinking that they must be so wasteful that they cannot even be
considered is extreme.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 17 May 2007 11:52:48
From: Lou Holtman
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 16, 7:49 pm, don Gabacho <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>
>> With the weight of the bike itself plus the groceries pushing and the
>> weight of the component pulling, I was slapped down so hard on the
>> pavement to break my collar-bone.
>
>> Lesson 2: The medical costs! Nearly $3,000 including one charge equal
>> to over $225/minute by an orthepedist who had not only done nothing
>> (not even x-rays) but, when asked to instruct on just how to fasten
>> the second strap of a simple sling, responded "I don't know."
>>
>> Yup: "A hard lesson(s) learned.
>>
>> Isn't Bush's health care plan wonderful?
>
> Sorry to hear you were injured, and I hope your recovery is speedy.
>
> The cost doesn't sound totally outrageous to me. It would be nice if
> it were cheaper, but just think about how much even car reapirs can
> be!
>
> I lived in LA for a while without insurance for me or my family. When
> we would take our infant son to the doctor, when they learned we had
> no insurance they often gave us a (significantly) discounted rate, so
> these rates are not cut in stone.

No insurance at all? What would happen if one of your family members
needed, and I mean really needed (car accident or something), a $50000
surgery?

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

Date: 17 May 2007 20:08:36
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

>> On May 16, 7:49 pm, don Gabacho <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>>> With the weight of the bike itself plus the groceries pushing and the
>>> weight of the component pulling, I was slapped down so hard on the
>>> pavement to break my collar-bone.
>>> Lesson 2: The medical costs! Nearly $3,000 including one charge equal
>>> to over $225/minute by an orthepedist who had not only done nothing
>>> (not even x-rays) but, when asked to instruct on just how to fasten
>>> the second strap of a simple sling, responded "I don't know."
>>> Yup: "A hard lesson(s) learned.
>>> Isn't Bush's health care plan wonderful?

> joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
>> Sorry to hear you were injured, and I hope your recovery is speedy.
>> The cost doesn't sound totally outrageous to me. It would be nice if
>> it were cheaper, but just think about how much even car reapirs can
>> be!
>> I lived in LA for a while without insurance for me or my family. When
>> we would take our infant son to the doctor, when they learned we had
>> no insurance they often gave us a (significantly) discounted rate, so
>> these rates are not cut in stone.
-snip experiences in socialism-

Lou Holtman wrote:
> No insurance at all? What would happen if one of your family members
> needed, and I mean really needed (car accident or something), a $50000
> surgery?

That's by definition a catastrophic event - possible, but for most
people, annual health care expense stays well under $100. Which is of
course much less than any third party scheme to pay it.

In our company, we bought a major medical plan with a $5000 annual per
person deductible, company self insured $500 to $5000, and employees
picked up the first $500 annually. When a new series of state-mandated
coverage areas raised our premiums by $450 per person per month, we
simply quit.
The other aspect that's changed is that now fewer doctors are self
employed or in small SCs. The incredible overhead of all the
non-revenue-producing staff and infrastructure ratchets costs up
inexorably.

There are no simple solutions to this very complex problem in which
many varied interests vie.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 17 May 2007 06:11:54
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Thu, 17 May 2007 11:52:48 +0200, Lou Holtman
<lholremovethis@planet.nl > wrote:

>No insurance at all? What would happen if one of your family members
>needed, and I mean really needed (car accident or something), a $50000
>surgery?

They'd either pas the cost to someone else by ignoring bills, go
bankrupt trying to pay or suffer w/improper car for being unable to
pay. I'm probably forgetting other unpleasant "options."

There are tens of millions of people in a similar situation right now
in the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 17 May 2007 12:24:40
From: Lou Holtman
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 11:52:48 +0200, Lou Holtman
> <lholremovethis@planet.nl> wrote:
>
>> No insurance at all? What would happen if one of your family members
>> needed, and I mean really needed (car accident or something), a $50000
>> surgery?
>
> They'd either pas the cost to someone else by ignoring bills, go
> bankrupt trying to pay or suffer w/improper car for being unable to
> pay. I'm probably forgetting other unpleasant "options."
>
> There are tens of millions of people in a similar situation right now
> in the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

Yes that's what I thought. I had they impression that Joseph preferred
this situation to that in Norway. It's easy to come up with an example
where this is true, but you have to look at overall picture. Here in the
Netherlands health insurance is mandatory for everybody older than 18
years and there is a lot of complaining, but I think overall this is a
better situation than you have in the USA.

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

Date: 17 May 2007 23:18:45
From: Andrew Price
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:24:40 +0200, Lou Holtman
<lholremovethis@planet.nl > wrote:

>Yes that's what I thought. I had they impression that Joseph preferred
>this situation to that in Norway. It's easy to come up with an example
>where this is true, but you have to look at overall picture. Here in the
>Netherlands health insurance is mandatory for everybody older than 18
>years and there is a lot of complaining, but I think overall this is a
>better situation than you have in the USA.

Likewise in France. Getting sick or having an accident is just a
nuisance, not something that people are terrified of because they
don't have access to proper medical care.

Date: 16 May 2007 22:17:46
From: don Gabacho
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 16, 5:33 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <81zm44sgvi....@westphal.org>,
> Bill Westphal <a...@westphal.org> wrote:
>
> > don Gabacho <jpast...@nettaxi.com> writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Yup: "A hard lesson(s) learned.
>
> > > Isn't Bush's health care plan wonderful?
>
> > Sorry for your wake-up call. You know the crooks charge double if
> > you don't have insurance, and even the regular insurance charge is
> > way in excess of what they deserve.
>
> If you don't have insurance you pay the full rate for health care. If
> you have insurance, the insurance company has negotiated a discount,
> often a very hefty one....

"Hefty"? Relative to the outlandish starting prices?

> The out-of-pocket payor pays the base rate.

After paying some $472/month for three years and having used the
insurance for only two flu shots (which I still paid 20/ea for), I
also paid to even visit: $30 to the emergency room (w/x-rays,
diagnosis and sling) then $50 to the referred Orthopedist, for saying
yes, as you already know your collarbone is broken, no treatment and,
when I asked how to use the second strap of the sling already
provided: recieve the answer "I don't know, then another $30 to the
insurance company's own doctor for a so called "follow-up" for no
examination to merely refer me to back to the same orthopedist and an
additional $50 to visit there to have him say "Sorry, I forgot I had
an appointment" and a second glance at my collarbone.

Just to walk in each office, as instructed by the insurance company,
and excluding the "hefty" premiums already paid but virtually never
used, the sum of just walking into each department's door has been
$160, and there will two more "follow ups," as instructed by the
insurance company equaling, in total $220.

And the bill, less "the hefty discount negotiated by the insurance
company" is still to arrive!!

I've broken a collar bone before, some 39 years ago. It cost 25
dollars plus x-rays. Just feeling it and looking in a mirror showed
the break then, just as feeling it and looking in a mirror did now.

If I had the whole thing to do over. Already experienced, I'd have
simply went to a drug-store and bought the sling.

If anything, I'd have had better service without the insurance
company.

The emergency room doctor would not have bothered to refer me back to
my insurance company's doctor to not decide whether to use a butterfly
type sling or a simple one and have simply used the butterfly sling,
though painful, but if applied then and there, better then than later.

I could also have told them I was indigent, and that would have been
the end of any billings at all. If I were illegal to the states and
intending to pay nothing, and was being in any way being neglected, I
could have, according to the sign next to the entrance, immediately
called a state department and register a complaint that I could then
use to even sue the hospital!!

As far as the pain-killer prescriptions: I never used them.

And, before the collar bone breaks even reattached, the insurance
company had raised the rate.

Every time I call them (which can take hours) to explain, by now the
thirtieth time, that, when first called to find out which emergency
room to visit, their operator presumed "bike" meant "motorcyle!"
Nonetheless, they resume the inquisition.

The emergency room was an inquistion itself.

>From the statements to be billed, every time one of five emergency
room attendents including the doctor, walked into the room to ask "How
the accident happened" (rather than doing something about what
happened), at the obvious behest of the insurance company, the
hospital's emergency room charged!

This insurance company, btw, is NOT a small one. It is quite possibly
the U.S.'s largest and most widely publicized as sucessful---model
even---"health plan"!!!

The orthopedist, do-nothing, first visit was in access of 225 dollars
per minute!!!

Date: 16 May 2007 21:08:19
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

don Gabacho wrote:
> Yup, it was a beut!
>
> Riding along on a sidewalk while carrying a ton of groceries in my
> rear baskets, I spotted a brand-new computer and a power pack set
> alongside a dumpster for the taking.
>
> I stopped my bike, leaned over, grabbed the the battery pack's cable
> and heaved its weight up. It was worth 350 bucks as I considered just
> dumping the groceries to make room.
>
> But, alas, the front wheel had been turned sideways. Just as I got the
> 50lb component on the crossbar the wheel decided to suddenly roll.
>
> With the weight of the bike itself plus the groceries pushing and the
> weight of the component pulling, I was slapped down so hard on the
> pavement to break my collar-bone.
>
> Lesson 1: Never reach for or pickup anything while still astride a
> bicycle. Always get off the bike first.
>
> Lesson 2: The medical costs! Nearly $3,000 including one charge equal
> to over $225/minute by an orthepedist who had not only done nothing
> (not even x-rays) but, when asked to instruct on just how to fasten
> the second strap of a simple sling, responded "I don't know."
>
> Yup: "A hard lesson(s) learned.
>
> Isn't Bush's health care plan wonderful?

ROTFL You do a stupid thing (and apparently can't afford health insurance?)
and it's Bush's fault. Classic.

Date: 16 May 2007 20:26:39
From: don Gabacho
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 16, 4:06 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <1179337749.441952.214...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> don Gabacho <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry to hear about your collar bone, you do seem to have analyzed the
> cause correctly.

It was quite a freak accident.

One can think of it this way too: Say a person with a very heavy
backpack and a cane assumes the cane is going to remain stable while
reaching down to suddenly pick something up that is also heavy, and
just as he straightens up, but not quite enough: the cane slips.

Imagine the cane with a sharp point and the floor being smooth marble.
>From astride the bike, the instant the front wheel began to roll
(slip), the fall was that quick and hard.

Date: 16 May 2007 20:14:48
From: don Gabacho
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 16, 3:33 pm, Bill Westphal <a...@westphal.org > wrote:
> don Gabacho <jpast...@nettaxi.com> writes:
> > Yup, it was a beut!

> Sorry for your wake-up call. You know the crooks charge double if you
> don't have insurance,...

I do have insurance. The insurance company is pickiny up on about 89%
of the bills.

> and even the regular insurance charge is way in
> excess of what they deserve.

Far more than just double. After all so they think, the insurance
companies will pay. But who is paying the premiums ($472/month)?

Certainly not the insurance companies. Certainly not the hospitals.
Certainly not the doctors.

> We need to nationalize medical care,

I disagree.

... and
> tell the shyster doctors what we're going to pay them, and fight the
> AMA lobby to greatly expand the number of them....

I'm all for both trustbusting and throwing highway robbers where they
belong: in jail.

Btw, Lesson 4: Never say you had an accident on a "bike."

Say "bicycle." They will---angrily presume and cling to---you meant
"motorcycle." Not only then will the insurance companies pressure even
the emergency room to spend about ten times more time finding out what
happened instead of doing something about what happened, it will, as I
can see now, months before you can get it off your medical record
after of course the rates went up!!!

Date: 16 May 2007 18:08:26
From: Pat
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

>>
> Lesson 1: Never reach for or pickup anything while still astride a
> bicycle. Always get off the bike first.
>
A corollary to that is: always unclip your feet when you stop your bicycle
to look at something.

Date: 16 May 2007 16:07:13
From: Camilo
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On May 16, 9:49 am, don Gabacho <jpast...@nettaxi.com > wrote:

> Lesson 1: Never reach for or pickup anything while still astride a
> bicycle. Always get off the bike first.
>
> Lesson 2: The medical costs... equal
> to over $225/minute by an orthepedist who had not only done nothing

Lesson 3: DOH! I should have gone to medical school!

> Yup: "A hard lesson(s) learned.
>
> Isn't Bush's health care plan wonderful?

Plan? Do you know something I don't know?

Date: 16 May 2007 22:11:33
From: Crescentius Vespasianus
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

> Lesson 1: Never reach for or pickup anything while still astride a
> bicycle. Always get off the bike first.
>
------------
had a similar experience when I first started riding. Something fell off
the handlebar (maybe a light, can't really remember) I tried reaching for it
and of course crashed. The pain was intense, although I was lucky I only
got some bruises and road rash. I've never reached for anything sense.

Date: 16 May 2007 15:06:06
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

In article <1179337749.441952.214570@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >,
don Gabacho <jpastore@nettaxi.com > wrote:

Sorry to hear about your collar bone, you do seem to have analyzed the
cause correctly.

> Isn't Bush's health care plan wonderful?

"Everybody fend for themselves" isn't a plan.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/

http://pressesc.com/01179219349_us_health_system_most_expensive_least_eff
ective

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

Date: 16 May 2007 23:01:06
From: still me
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

On Wed, 16 May 2007 15:06:06 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:

>In article <1179337749.441952.214570@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> don Gabacho <jpastore@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>
>Sorry to hear about your collar bone, you do seem to have analyzed the
>cause correctly.

I finally learned a few years ago that when that little voice in your
head says "this shortcut move is a really bad idea and you should stop
do it the right way even though you know the right way will take
longer"... well, you should listen to that voice.

Date: 16 May 2007 22:04:05
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

Isn't Bush's health care plan wonderful?
>
> "Everybody fend for themselves" isn't a plan.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Isn't Bush's ____________________*plan wonderful?
*Insert any suitable topic: Iraq, energy, pollution, natural disaster,
global warming .....
"Everyone fend for themselves" isn't plan.

Date: 16 May 2007 13:33:37
From: Bill Westphal
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

don Gabacho <jpastore@nettaxi.com > writes:

> Yup, it was a beut!
>
> Riding along on a sidewalk while carrying a ton of groceries in my
> rear baskets, I spotted a brand-new computer and a power pack set
> alongside a dumpster for the taking.
>
> I stopped my bike, leaned over, grabbed the the battery pack's cable
> and heaved its weight up. It was worth 350 bucks as I considered just
> dumping the groceries to make room.
>
> But, alas, the front wheel had been turned sideways. Just as I got the
> 50lb component on the crossbar the wheel decided to suddenly roll.
>
> With the weight of the bike itself plus the groceries pushing and the
> weight of the component pulling, I was slapped down so hard on the
> pavement to break my collar-bone.
>
> Lesson 1: Never reach for or pickup anything while still astride a
> bicycle. Always get off the bike first.
>
> Lesson 2: The medical costs! Nearly $3,000 including one charge equal
> to over $225/minute by an orthepedist who had not only done nothing
> (not even x-rays) but, when asked to instruct on just how to fasten
> the second strap of a simple sling, responded "I don't know."
>
> Yup: "A hard lesson(s) learned.
>
> Isn't Bush's health care plan wonderful?

Sorry for your wake-up call. You know the crooks charge double if you
don't have insurance, and even the regular insurance charge is way in
excess of what they deserve. We need to nationalize medical care, and
tell the shyster doctors what we're going to pay them, and fight the
AMA lobby to greatly expand the number of them. Do you know the AMA
lobby convinces the govt. to pay many teaching hospitals to forego the
lucritive practice of training doctors (doctors in training are a
source of cheap labor). I was working at Abbott Labs when Hillary
attempted a national health plan (essentially nationalize the
industry) in the 90's, and boy was she ever demonized by the rank &
file there, including people very low on the management scale, who
would have benefited greatly, but blindly and ignorantly loyal to the
"cause". Bush supports monopoly control in health care and everything
else, where the ortho doc charges whatever he feels like charging.
This has even spread to dentistry (I have been bitten badly there
recently), with a lot of customers receiving construction income and
flooding into their offices, and finally bringing in the half
toothless kids. I guess some of the insurers are footing the bill for
people to have things done in foreign countries. I hope US doctors
get bitten at least 1/10 as bad as I am by the IT outsourcing exodus.

Bill Westphal

Date: 16 May 2007 16:33:34
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

In article <81zm44sgvi.fsf@westphal.org >,
Bill Westphal <aioe@westphal.org > wrote:

> don Gabacho <jpastore@nettaxi.com> writes:

<snip >

> > Yup: "A hard lesson(s) learned.
> >
> > Isn't Bush's health care plan wonderful?
>
> Sorry for your wake-up call. You know the crooks charge double if
> you don't have insurance, and even the regular insurance charge is
> way in excess of what they deserve.

If you don't have insurance you pay the full rate for health care. If
you have insurance, the insurance company has negotiated a discount,
often a very hefty one. The out-of-pocket payor pays the base rate.

> We need to nationalize medical care, and tell the shyster doctors
> what we're going to pay them, and fight the AMA lobby to greatly
> expand the number of them.

Part of the cost of health care is driven by the shortage of providers,
both doctors and especially nurses. The development over the past 20
years of nurse practitioners as a semi-independent set of professionals
has taken off some of the pressure.

> Do you know the AMA lobby convinces the govt. to pay many teaching
> hospitals to forego the lucritive practice of training doctors
> (doctors in training are a source of cheap labor).

Training a doctor, from the start of medical school to the point of
being able to practice independently, takes 10 years. Several years ago
I heard a discussion of this on public radio; IIRC it costs nearly
$1,000,000 to prepare a physician for practice, about half of which is
paid for by the government (the other half is paid for by debt incurred
by the medical student; loan payments often exceed income during
residency) It costs nearly $110,000 per year per resident physician
(e.g., "cheap labor") including the cost of the resident's salary and
the cost of on-the-job training and supervision.

The AMA, traditionally fearing a glut of doctors and acting very much
like a guild acting in the interest of the profession rather than the
public, has discouraged the development of public policy that would have
increased the number of physicians trained in the US. As a result we
have to import many doctors from other countries.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm

> I was working at Abbott Labs when Hillary attempted a national health
> plan (essentially nationalize the industry) in the 90's, and boy was
> she ever demonized by the rank & file there, including people very
> low on the management scale, who would have benefited greatly, but
> blindly and ignorantly loyal to the "cause".

Hillary didn't really, since as the First Lady she had no real political
role. She was involved in a commission to look at alternative health
care systems. The system proposed, IIRC, was a non-starter due to
immense complexity.

http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/20starr.html

ISTR there were citizen panels convened to consider several competing
plans in 1993. As I recall, the one the panels actually liked was the
Wellstone single-payer proposal, but that never stood a chance and still
would not- even though it would:

* guarantee access to health care for all Americans; would separate
health coverage from employment;

* put US employers on an equal footing with most of the rest of the
world by sharply reducing their cost of health care for employees and
remove one significant impetus for outsourcing jobs;

* eliminate the Byzantine bureaucracies of Medicaid, Medicare and the
Veteran's Administration (but would of course create a single- probably
also Byzantine- bureaucracy to replace them, although that still seems
like progress to me);

* eliminate the many private Byzantine bureaucracies of the insurance
industry;

* reduce the cost of health care coverage by eliminating insurance
company profit margins, which add tens of billions of dollars to the
health care tab in America;

* be able to leverage massive economies of scale to reduce the per
capita cost of health care especially drug costs;

* reduce the total cost of health care by ensuring access to preventive
care and mental health care;

* and streamline the payment system for doctors allowing greater
profitability at lower reimbursement rates.

I am a health care provider (licensed psychologist). My clinic has to
have a business office staff to deal with more twenty different
insurance companies plus Medicare and Medicaid- about 1 business office
person for every 6 providers. By the time all is said and done it costs
nearly $5.00 to send out a bill, and it is not unusual for three to five
bills to have to be sent out for each service. If I could get paid by
sending only one bill out, I could get reimbursed about 10% less and
maintain the same profitability or paid the same and get my first real
raise in over a decade.

BTW, that profitability is a lot less than most people imagine, for
psychologists and for other health care providers. Many doctors,
dentists, psychologists, etc. in private practice are essentially paid
on commission, getting a percentage of collections while the clinic
keeps the rest to pay for overhead. Often we do not get paid benefits
like vacation or sick leave, health insurance, disability insurance,
etc. We may be considered independent contractors and pay all our own
taxes. Private practices that pay a salary rather than commission, and
thus can also offer paid vacation and other benefits, typically have
much greater control over the provider's schedule and set a minimum
number of appointments per day and per week. Smaller clinics are rarely
able to do this, larger clinics affiliated with hospitals often can.

In the case of the clinic where I work, each clinician (there are nearly
80 total, many of whom are part-time) is paying a share of the income
and benefits for the business office staff, the medical records staff,
the receptionists, the administrative staff, plus a share of the office
rent, clinic liability insurance, maintenance services, utilities,
telephone services, office equipment like photocopiers, computers,
remodeling offices, furniture, the out-of-date magazine service, etc. It
costs about $1,250,000 per year for the clinic to have the doors open
six days a week in five locations. Each provider has to pay for
malpractice insurance, too. And a psychology clinic is cheap to operate
compared to a physician or dentist! We don't have to buy medical
equipment like exam tables, X-ray machines, etc. Psychologist's
malpractice insurance is cheap compared to other medical professions-
obstetricians and surgeons can pay more per year in malpractice premiums
than I earn. When you add up the operating costs for medical providers,
the prices that patients pay suddenly start to make some sense.

Provider incomes have been shrinking for years- I make quite a bit less
now, when corrected for inflation, than I did in 1997 (under $40,000
last year); most of the rising costs in health care have been driven not
by doctors making more money but by huge increases in drug costs and an
increase in the use of expensive tests like MRIs.

> Bush supports monopoly control in health care and everything else,
> where the ortho doc charges whatever he feels like charging.

Bush would call that a "market solution" and tell you that it's not a
monopoly because you are free to find an orthopedist who charges less
(not, of course, a practical reality but that has never bothered Dubya).
If you saw an orthopedist in a hospital, though the charge was probably
whatever the hospital sets. The ER is far and away the most expensive
place to get health care.

> This has even spread to dentistry (I have been bitten badly there
> recently), with a lot of customers receiving construction income and
> flooding into their offices, and finally bringing in the half
> toothless kids. I guess some of the insurers are footing the bill
> for people to have things done in foreign countries. I hope US
> doctors get bitten at least 1/10 as bad as I am by the IT outsourcing
> exodus.

The exodus in health care is one of "insourcing," bringing health care
providers in from around the world because we don't have enough here. I
have worked with nurses and doctors from all over the world. It seems
like half or more of the professional health care staff I see at most
hospitals locally are not from the US.

Date: 17 May 2007 13:59:24
From: Bill Westphal
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > writes:

> In article <81zm44sgvi.fsf@westphal.org>,
> Bill Westphal <aioe@westphal.org> wrote:
>
>> don Gabacho <jpastore@nettaxi.com> writes:
>
> <snip>
>
>> > Yup: "A hard lesson(s) learned.
>> >
>> > Isn't Bush's health care plan wonderful?
>>
>> Sorry for your wake-up call. You know the crooks charge double if
>>[snip]

>
> Training a doctor, from the start of medical school to the point of
> being able to practice independently, takes 10 years. Several years ago

>[snip]

Great post, and researched links too. I'd nominate it for "most
thoughtful and best presented post of the month" but it fails the
"topicality" requirement (not more than 20% about bicycles). A little
objective information goes a long way. Thanks. Charlie Rose (google
video available online, or at charlierose.com) had a bunch of
stem-cell researchers as part of a medical research series he has
going, complaining about US policy restricting their work, and the
repercusions to ill people, so I've temporarily shifted my rage from
from midguided health-care management government policy, and insurance
companies and other overhead to medical care, not to mention
expectations of large profit for investors, to government policy
vis-a-vis medical ethics. Tomorrow it will be something else.
Probably the environment when I come across the next clear-cutting
operation on my MTB or hike. Those tend to really piss me off. What
a pain being pissed all the time. But if I get the HR up around
80-90% for a few hours that all goes away for awhile. Maybe I'll get
Alzheimers (which they won't be able to cure for lack of stem-cell
research) and I'll be gleefully ignorant. One can only hope.

Bill Westphal

Date: 17 May 2007 01:47:11
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

Tim McNamara wrote:

> If you don't have insurance you pay the full rate for health care. If
> you have insurance, the insurance company has negotiated a discount,
> often a very hefty one. The out-of-pocket payor pays the base rate.

This language is all wrong. Obviously the hospitals make enough on
insured patients to stay in business. That would seem to be the "full
rate" -- pay what the services cost. They obviously are not charging
insurance companies less than their costs, or they would not stay in
business. They then make up ludicrous charges, primarily to scare you
and to be glad that the insurance is paying 80% (of what? not the
stated costs). You then pay half of what the services really cost, and
think you are getting a bargain. Meanwhile, people without insurance
are afraid of what they know will be astronomical charges, and so stay
away. Win-win for the hospital, and the insurance companies. Poor folk
get the shaft, as usual.

--

David L. Johnson

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo Emerson

Date: 16 May 2007 23:38:48
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: A Hard Lesson(s) Learned

>> don Gabacho <jpastore@nettaxi.com> writes:
> <snip>
-medical services discussion-

> Bill Westphal <aioe@westphal.org> wrote:
>> We need to nationalize medical care, and tell the shyster doctors
-snip-

Tim McNamara wrote:
> If you don't have insurance you pay the full rate for health care.
-snip-
Provider incomes have been shrinking for years
-snip-

Besides my own experiences, including a wrist repair that cost half what
I paid for my house, my brothers include a medical research scientist,
an MD (anaesthesiologist) and a health insurance contract negotiator.
I've learned that any simple solution offered flippantly (including on
r.b.t.) is going to be inadequate to the problem. (Tim's right about
Docs mostly not 'living large' under today's constraints).

Let's go back to our simple machines with their solvable problems!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971