ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 08:49:28 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said:

Louie's doubts may be baseless but they can't technically
be called "wrong", so I never asserted that he's wrong.

My "doubts" are based on what Canadian and GB men told me. My "doubts"
are what an endocrinologist told me fairly recently while reviewing my
medical records: "Wow. You've had some outstanding men and women as
doctors over the past 20 years. Leaders in their fields."

Did I tell you I am very happy with my health care and I don't want
your swarmy half-breed ****ing it up?

Davey

ot health care
 

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:40:34 +0100, Lazarus Cooke
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


Amazingly, the US manages to come even behind Cuba (5.82).

HOLY ****!! THAT IS AMAZING!! Um....why?


I think that it IS amazing.

Since you're a lawyer I'll answer what might be a rhetorical question.

Um...I am? IAC, while lawyers get blamed for a lot of things - some deservedly
so, some iffy, and many unfairly so, I'll go out on a limb and state that I
unreservedly believe that "lawyers" aren't responsible for the IMR in the US,
Cuba, or anywhere else.

I find it astonishing that of two countries right beside each other,
the rich one, with around $47,000 per head GDP, manages to have a worse
infant mortality rate than the poor one, with around $9,500 per head
GDP. Especially since the rich one regularly castigates the poor one's
government.

Why do you find it "astonishing" in and of itself? Let me propose a situation -
take country "A" and country "B." In country A, for a variety of reasons,
pregnancies are treated with some thoughtful seriousness by "adults" ("adults"
in the broad sense, by local standards, and certainly, there are "accidents,"
but as a broadly general statement, most pregnancies in "A" are
"planned"/desired/"wanted" by "adults" who want a child/children). OTOH, in "B"
a fair portion of the pregnancies are "accidents" involving "children" (again,
local standards) or legal "adults" who don't want a child and/or are not
prepared in any way to be parents (including pre-natal responsibilities). OTOH,
if a prospective parent in "B" was even half-heartedly "responsible," a baby
born in "B" would have heroic measures used, with _generally_ little thought of
cost, should such be necessary. Now, let's suppose the CIA had some way of
determining the IMR of "A" versus those live births in "B" only to those parents
who generally resembled, insofar as the (prospective) parents' pre-natal picture
from a general "desire" standpoint, those in "A." What do you think the numbers
might then show?

As another example - let's take a spoiled child in the UK and give them what to
them would be a small, inexpensive toy, the kind they wouldn't normally even
pick up if it were offered. Now, let's give that same toy to a child who
doesn't have much in the way of toys. What do you imagine the "toy mortality
rate" is going to be with the UK kid versus the other?

What proportion Republican voters do you think would get the right
answer if asked 'In which country has a newborn baby a better chance of
living - USA or Cuba'?

I haven't asked them - have you? But if I must make a guess, I'll guess that it
would probably be more than you think and less than I would hope...and I doubt
Democrats in their entirety (or Labour or Tory or...) would do significantly
better...also less than I'd hope, and, I'm guessing by your use of "Republican,"
some groups wouldn't do as well as you think...

HTH,
R

Lazarus

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 09:02:19 -0400, said:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:49:28 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
David LaCourse wrote:
I don't know, but I do know they seem to have to wait longer for certain
procedures. Time was very important in my case. It had to be done NOW
and was. I doubt I would have survived in Canada or GB.
You're just making **** up. You have absolutely no way of knowing
your chances of survival in Canada or the UK because you don't
know diddly about health care in Canada or the UK. But you've
never let ignorance stop you from spouting off your fat mouth
before so why should this time be any different.

You're a great Republican, Louie. Keep up the good work and ...

Carry on.

Um, just out of curiosity, what personal experience do you have with those
health care systems?

I've been to a hospital in Atikokan, Ontario. Other
than that, none.

Um, well, I've been to not only Cape Canaveral, but the Texas, Mississippi AND
Alabama space facilities...I'm not claiming to be Neil Armstrong...and speaking
of outer space, how's the view up Uranus way these days....?

On what do you base your assertion that he's wrong?

Louie's doubts may be baseless but they can't technically
be called "wrong", so I never asserted that he's wrong.

Fair enough. On what do you base your assertion that his doubts are
(or may be)
"baseless?"

HTH,
R

Hey, Ken once got to first "base" with a girl - well, at least he
*said* it was a girl - so he knows what "baseless". And I know about
Canadian health care because Peter Charles lives within a half mile of
an Ontario hospital, and I drove by it several times - hell, maybe even
a *dozen* times.

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 09:46:10 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
On what do you base your assertion that his doubts are (or may be)
"baseless?"
I base that assertion on the fact that Louie doesn't know
diddly about health care in Canada or the UK.

And on what do you base your assessment of Louie's knowledge of the health care
in Canada or the UK? ...

Louie himself said he has little knowledge of the health care
in Canada or the UK other than "it seems" they have long waiting
times for certain procedures.

I also stated that I talked with Canadian and GB men on an
international forum and their doctors had failed them - wrong advice,
wrong procedures. Their GS were less than mine yet they ended up
impotent and incontinent, and in some cases NOT cured. It was not just
in Canada and GB, but the US also. A dear friend who lived on the
sheep farm down the road from us was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
His Gleason was 8 - bad, but not as bad as mine. He went with the
radiation. I told him that I thought surgery was the best. This was
only six months after my cure. He died three years later with bone
cancer - a result of the prostate cancer spreading. **** happens,
right? Even with the best doctors it can happen.

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 11:10:29 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said:

wrote:

... Let
me ask you - do people in the US get to select their own doctors? How about
people in Holland, China, Cuba, or Tahiti...?

Why are you asking me questions about countries other than
Canada and the UK when my assertion was about Louie and
health care in Canada and the UK ?

Louie obviously does not know diddly about health care in
Canada or the UK. Dispute that if you want, it's obvious
to me.

I DO know about Canadian health care 13+ years ago when I had prostate
cancer. Canadian men were dying from it, or walking around wearing
diapers the rest of their life, while men who were fortunate enough to
have good surgeons using the nerving saving technique were not only
cured, but were not incontinent or impotent. I know it must hurt you,
Ken, to know that the US of A could have such doctors, but they do and
did 13 years ago when I needed them. If I had been in Canada, my
"lethally aggressive tumor" would have left with with diapers (best
situation), or killed me (worst situation). I KNOW THAT from talking
to Canadian men AT THE TIME.

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 08:42:43 -0400, Giles said:

On Sep 18, 6:47*am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-17 21:48:48 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:

Do you think people in Canada or Great Britain do not get to select
their own doctors?

I don't know, but I do know they seem to have to wait longer for
certain procedures. *Time was very important in my case. *It had to b
e
done NOW and was. *I doubt I would have survived in Canada or GB.

So......um.....Bixby should have stayed here, huh?

Moron.

g.

Bixby died a year before I had my surgery. Could he have been saved?
I don't know - his cancer obviously spread; they didn't catch it it
time. But, chew on this Wolfgoat: I LIVED. d;op

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 10:02:02 -0400, Lazarus Cooke
said:

Correction

Afghanistan is third worst.

Worst is Angola (180), then Sierra Leone, 154, Afghanistan, 152,
Liberia, 138, and Niger, 117.

I was remembering out-dated statistics.

Lazarus

You memorize such statistics? You need a life, Lazarus. Go fishing -
may help.

ot health care
 

On Sep 18, 1:13*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-18 08:42:43 -0400, Giles said:





On Sep 18, 6:47*am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-17 21:48:48 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:

Do you think people in Canada or Great Britain do not get to select
their own doctors?

I don't know, but I do know they seem to have to wait longer for
certain procedures. *Time was very important in my case. *It had to b
e
done NOW and was. *I doubt I would have survived in Canada or GB.

So......um.....Bixby should have stayed here, huh?

Moron.

g.

Bixby died a year before I had my surgery. *Could he have been saved? *
I don't know - his cancer obviously spread; *they didn't catch it it
time.

So, you think he should have stayed here in Murrica with good old
Merkin doctors and all health care and ****, huh?

But, chew on this Wolfgoat: *I LIVED.

You'll get over that. Your nephew won't.

g.

ot health care
 

On Sep 18, 9:20*am, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:02:02 +0100, Lazarus Cooke

wrote:
Correction

Afghanistan is third worst.

Worst is Angola (180), then Sierra Leone, 154, Afghanistan, 152,
Liberia, 138, and Niger, 117.

I was remembering out-dated statistics.

Um, remembering the IMR of _every_ country on earth...? *I don't care what you
do for a vocation, avocation, or just ****s and grins, you REALLY need to check
into the UK's payment scheme for psychiatric assistance...or see if they'll at
least pay for a bender or two...

HTH,
R
...but, I suppose, it's probably best that you made such a correction - all we
need is Fred, Louie, goatgang, and Steve to get into a 1754 post pillowfight on
whether Angola or Afghanistan sucks the most...by normally-accepted rules of
thumb, anyhoo...

Nothing at all to say? NOTHING??!! Then why not say just that?

g.

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 10:43:54 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:

David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-17 21:48:48 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:

Do you think people in Canada or Great Britain do not get to select
their own doctors?

I don't know, but I do know they seem to have to wait longer for
certain procedures. Time was very important in my case. It had to be
done NOW and was. I doubt I would have survived in Canada or GB.


You don't know that either.

Oh yes I do - at least 13 years ago for a man with prostate cancer.
Sometimes "immediate" means "right now". There were man examples of
Canadian men not getting proper care for their cancerous tumors. Many
had GS less than mine but were left incontinent and impotent, while
still others weren't even cured.

One of the things that bothers me about the health care debate in the
US is the misrepresentaiton that is made about helath care in other
countries. There is a lot of misrepresentation made. I have heard the
one about picking doctors for years, and the one about waiting times.

There are no waits for urgent care. I had chest pains a few years ago,
and was admitted and treated immediately. My friend was diagnoses with
prostate cancer, and was admitted and treated immediately.

There are waits for elective surgery.

If your health care is so great, Tim, and I have no recent experiences
to claim it is not, why do so many Canadians come to the US for
treatment. Could it be John Hopkins, Sloan Kettery, Mass General, Mass
Childrens, Mayo, etc.?

ot health care
 

On Sep 18, 1:15*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-18 10:02:02 -0400, Lazarus Cooke
said:

Correction

Afghanistan is third worst.

Worst is Angola (180), then Sierra Leone, 154, Afghanistan, 152,
Liberia, 138, and Niger, 117.

I was remembering out-dated statistics.

Lazarus

You memorize such statistics? *You need a life, Lazarus. *Go fishing -
may help.

Exactly! I mean, what is the point of actually knowing something
about the matter under consideration?

g.

ot health care
 

On Sep 18, 9:13*am, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:43:22 +0100, Lazarus Cooke

wrote:
In article 2009091807474016807-dplacourse@aolcom, David LaCourse
wrote:

*I doubt I would have survived in Canada or GB.

The normally accepted rule of thumb for a country's healthcare is
infant mortality. Afghanistan comes last, and most of the poorest 30 or
so are in Africa.

Um, "normally accepted"...? *Would, oh, say, a truck driver from South Korea
whip out this chart when confronted by, oh, say, a architect from Peru over
drinks in Paris, or is it something "normally accepted" by certain
organizations, or ??? *



But the richest country in the world comes an astonishing forty-fourth
from the top. The USA's infant mortality is 6.26 per 1,000 live births,
compared to, say, 2.75 in Sweden, 3.33 in France, 4.25 in Slovenia,
4.85 in the UK, 5.04 in Canada.

Oh, sure, you rattle off some figures, but how much are eggs in China?



Amazingly, the US manages to come even behind Cuba (5.82).

HOLY ****!! *THAT IS AMAZING!! *Um....why?



My source for these 2009 figures is that well-known commie outfit, the
CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/rankorder/20
91rank.html

Ah. *So, OK, put down Lazarus Cooke under "If the CIA says it, it's true...and
highly significant." *Hey, wait a sec - are you just trying to build up brownie
points so you can just glide back to the US and scam some free health care...?
Well, don't try to sneak in any Cubans or they'll cut off your diddly...or any
illegal cigars, either...



Lazarus

HTH,
R

So, enlighten us. What IS a good metric for health care standards
around the world. What, if anything, is wrong with the system in the
U.S.? What models should we use? How would you go about instituting
whatever changes might be necessary? How would you suggest that it be
paid for? Tell us something.

g.

ot health care
 

On Sep 18, 12:38*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:40:34 +0100, Lazarus Cooke

wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Amazingly, the US manages to come even behind Cuba (5.82).

HOLY ****!! *THAT IS AMAZING!! *Um....why?

I think that it IS amazing.

Since you're a lawyer I'll answer what might be a rhetorical question.

Um...I am?

Well, are you?

IAC, while lawyers get blamed for a lot of things - some deservedly
so, some iffy, and many unfairly so, I'll go out on a limb and state that I
unreservedly believe that "lawyers" aren't responsible for the IMR in the US,
Cuba, or anywhere else.

Why do you believe that?

I find it astonishing that of two countries right beside each other,
the rich one, with around $47,000 per head GDP, manages to have a worse
infant mortality rate than the poor one, with around $9,500 per head
GDP. Especially since the rich one regularly castigates the poor one's
government.

Why do you find it "astonishing" in and of itself? *Let me propose a situation -
take country "A" and country "B." *In country A, for a variety of reasons,
pregnancies are treated with some thoughtful seriousness by "adults" ("adults"
in the broad sense, by local standards, and certainly, there are "accidents,"
but as a broadly general statement, most pregnancies in "A" are
"planned"/desired/"wanted" by "adults" who want a child/children). *OTOH, in "B"
a fair portion of the pregnancies are "accidents" involving "children" (again,
local standards) or legal "adults" who don't want a child and/or are not
prepared in any way to be parents (including pre-natal responsibilities). *OTOH,
if a prospective parent in "B" was even half-heartedly "responsible," a baby
born in "B" would have heroic measures used, with _generally_ little thought of
cost, should such be necessary. *Now, let's suppose the CIA had some way of
determining the IMR of "A" versus those live births in "B" only to those parents
who generally resembled, insofar as the (prospective) parents' pre-natal picture
from a general "desire" standpoint, those in "A." *What do you think the numbers
might then show?

Way too complicated. Why don't you just tell us the right answer?

As another example - let's take a spoiled child in the UK and give them what to
them would be a small, inexpensive toy, the kind they wouldn't normally even
pick up if it were offered. *Now, let's give that same toy to a child who
doesn't have much in the way of toys. *What do you imagine the "toy mortality
rate" is going to be with the UK kid versus the other?

See, this is why everyone here looks to you for germaine arguments
that will not only clarify issues, but also offer cogent strategies
for dealing with them successfully.

What proportion Republican voters do you think would get the right
answer if asked 'In which country has a newborn baby a better chance of
living - *USA or Cuba'?

I haven't asked them - have you?

Fair enough, but what proportion of Republican voters do you think
would get the right answer if asked 'In which country has a newborn
baby a better chance of living - USA or Cuba'?

But if I must make a guess, I'll guess that it
would probably be more than you think and less than I would hope...and I doubt
Democrats in their entirety (or Labour or Tory or...) would do significantly
better...also less than I'd hope, and, I'm guessing by your use of "Republican,"
some groups wouldn't do as well as you think...

O.k., but what proportion of Republican voters do you think would get
the right answer if asked 'In which country has a newborn baby a
better chance of living - USA or Cuba'?

g.

ot health care
 

On Sep 17, 9:44*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:02:55 +0100, Lazarus Cooke

wrote:
If I were to move back to the US, how much should I budget for to get a
better standard of service?

Somewhere between nothing and a whole bunch...if you moved back today, at your
age, with pre-existing conditions, you might have to sign on the line for the
whole bill...you might not actually have to _pay_ it, all or partial, however.
OTOH, depending on your employer (and you'd not need be even low/mid-management
- hell, you could be Hawking's hub-greaser's second assistant and have full
coverage, or, you could be a senior manager of whatever and have none), it
might cost you nothing AND you'd have disability payments while down, if you
were down. *Hell, a _full_ ride for all (even retirees with Medicare and a sup
available), healthcare-wise, is a big part of what put GM where it is...and the
UK where it is...

Let me ask you this - at what point do you feel your obligation to help pay for
the healthcare of others ends? *And what obligation do you feel others have to
pay for yours?

Hm.....

At what poing do YOU feel your obligation to help pay for the
healthcare of others ends? And what obligation do YOU feel others
have to pay for yours?

g.
if any of you have wondered whether this is as easy as it looks, yes,
it is. if any have wondered why he does it.....now you know.

ot health care
 

David LaCourse wrote:

If your health care is so great, Tim, and I have no recent experiences
to claim it is not, why do so many Canadians come to the US for
treatment. Could it be John Hopkins, Sloan Kettery, Mass General, Mass
Childrens, Mayo, etc.?

Most care is done within the country. Some folks go to the US for
procedures that cannot be done here either due to equipment or
personelle shortages, or the procedure isn't available where they live.
Canada is a big place, with not many people. If people go to the US for
legimate treatments, the costs are still covered by the provincial
governments, not the patients themselves. They still get the care, they
don't bear the direct costs.

Why do so many Americans go to Mexico for cancer treatments?

Tim Lysyk

ot health care
 

On 18-Sep-2009, wrote:

- all we
need is Fred, Louie, goatgang, and Steve to get into a 1754 post
pillowfight on
whether Angola or Afghanistan sucks the most...by normally-accepted rules
of
thumb, anyhoo...


On 18-Sep-2009, wrote:

- all we
need is Fred, Louie, goatgang, and Steve to get into a 1754 post
pillowfight on
whether Angola or Afghanistan sucks the most...by normally-accepted rules
of
thumb, anyhoo...

I do not know what the f... you are saying here ( There are quite a few of
your posts that I can say the same for ) but if you are referring to me -
PLEASE do not put me in the company of that pig...er goat

Thanks
Fred

ot health care
 

On 18-Sep-2009, David LaCourse wrote:

I'm going fishing on the Rapid for ten days.

This is the best post of this thread.
Have a good time,

I miss Northern Maine - We had great times

Do you know Chesuncook Lake?

Fred

ot health care
 

David LaCourse wrote:
Did I tell you I am very happy with my health care

All fine and good for you. I'm glad you have the resources
to afford quality health care. Meanwhile 45,000 of our
fellow citizens, 45,000 Americans, die every year for lack
of health insurance. Roll that thought around for awhile,
in the richest country on earth 45,000 citizens every year
die for lack of something most civilized countries consider
a right of every citizen. That is deplorable.

http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/me...ealth-coverage

or if that wraps on you:

http://tinyurl.com/ox8u4d

and I don't want your swarmy half-breed ****ing it up?

You're a great Republican, Louie. Keep up the good work and ...

Carry on.

--
Ken Fortenberry

ot health care
 

On Sep 18, 2:52*pm, "Fred" wrote:
On 18-Sep-2009, wrote:
- all we
need is Fred, Louie, goatgang, and Steve to get into a 1754 post
pillowfight on
whether Angola or Afghanistan sucks the most...by normally-accepted rules
of
thumb, anyhoo...
On 18-Sep-2009, wrote:
- all we
need is Fred, Louie, goatgang, and Steve to get into a 1754 post
pillowfight on
whether Angola or Afghanistan sucks the most...by normally-accepted rules
of
thumb, anyhoo...

I do not know what the f... you are saying here ( There are quite a few of
your posts that I can say the same for )

There's two reasons for that: 1. As always, he isn't saying
anything, which is in turn a result of the fact that he has nothing to
say. He makes that perfectly clear with each post. 2. You ain't
real bright.

but if you are referring to me -
PLEASE do not put me in the company of that pig...er goat

See, that's why we're all so nice to you.....because you're a nice
guy.

g.

ot health care
 

On Sep 18, 2:48*pm, Tim Lysyk wrote:


Why do so many Americans go to Mexico for cancer treatments?

And to Mexico.....and Canada.....for drugs?

g.
taking bets on whether or not you'll get a rational response,
Tim? :)

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 15:56:08 -0400, "Fred" said:


On 18-Sep-2009, David LaCourse wrote:

I'm going fishing on the Rapid for ten days.

This is the best post of this thread.
Have a good time,

I miss Northern Maine - We had great times

Do you know Chesuncook Lake?

Fred

Sure do. Ever heard of Fawn Lake in Montana? Ask Fortenberry about
it. He was there once.

Dave

ot health care
 

Giles wrote:
On Sep 18, 2:48 pm, Tim Lysyk wrote:


Why do so many Americans go to Mexico for cancer treatments?

And to Mexico.....and Canada.....for drugs?

g.
taking bets on whether or not you'll get a rational response,
Tim? :)


Gave up on that a long time ago.

Tim Lysyk

ot health care
 

In message 2009091807474016807-dplacourse@aolcom, David LaCourse
writes
On 2009-09-17 21:48:48 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:

Do you think people in Canada or Great Britain do not get to select
their own doctors?

I don't know, but I do know they seem to have to wait longer for
certain procedures. Time was very important in my case. It had to be
done NOW and was. I doubt I would have survived in Canada or GB.



Pirates get the best - if they take off their eye patches first :-)
--
Bill Grey

ot health care
 

On Sep 18, 4:01*pm, Tim Lysyk wrote:
Giles wrote:
On Sep 18, 2:48 pm, Tim Lysyk wrote:

Why do so many Americans go to Mexico for cancer treatments?

And to Mexico.....and Canada.....for drugs?

g.
taking bets on whether or not you'll get a rational response,
Tim? * * * *:)

Gave up on that a long time ago.

Tim Lysyk

Not without ample reason.

g.

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 10:40:34 -0400, Lazarus Cooke
said:

In article ,
wrote:


Amazingly, the US manages to come even behind Cuba (5.82).

HOLY ****!! THAT IS AMAZING!! Um....why?


I think that it IS amazing.

Since you're a lawyer I'll answer what might be a rhetorical question.

I find it astonishing that of two countries right beside each other,
the rich one, with around $47,000 per head GDP, manages to have a worse
infant mortality rate than the poor one, with around $9,500 per head
GDP. Especially since the rich one regularly castigates the poor one's
government.

What proportion Republican voters do you think would get the right
answer if asked 'In which country has a newborn baby a better chance of
living - USA or Cuba'?

Lazarus

Lazarus, the difference between the IMR in the States and elsewhere
could be accounted for because lots of girls do not see a doctor. My
own neice did not see a doctor, trying to hide it from my brother. She
had the child and everything was ok, but she took a chance. There are
many young girls in the inner city that do not see doctors. I see them
every Tuesday and Thursday at the Food Pantry I help run. It is not
because they *can't* see a doctor; they simply choose not to. In the
States, it is illegal for a doctor to tell a minor child's parents that
she is pregnant. It's also illegal to tell them she is on birth
control. I would be curious to see the stats of IMR in the US before,
say, 1960.

You most certainly are wrong if you think that Cuba's health care is
better than the US, or any European country. Poor health care in the
US is not the cause for the IMR. I should think drugs, alcohol,
smoking, and life style are more the cause than anything else,
including fear of someone finding out about the pregnancy. Some of the
women I see are on drugs, and they couldn't care less about themselves
OR their children. If their health is bad, and from what I've seen it
is, their offspring hardly have a chance to survive They're 25 or so
and look like they're 50. Not a pretty thing.

Also, consider this (from my wife). Technology has increased so much
in our medicine that previous births that would have been stillborns or
naturally lost during the pregnancy are now making it, at least through
birth, but die because of the complications that would have naturally
aborted the child.

So, using the IMR to compare health care as a whole is not a very
accurate benchmark. IMO anyway.

Dave

ot health care
 

On Sep 18, 4:23*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-18 10:40:34 -0400, Lazarus Cooke
said:





In article ,
wrote:

Amazingly, the US manages to come even behind Cuba (5.82).

HOLY ****!! *THAT IS AMAZING!! *Um....why?

I think that it IS amazing.

Since you're a lawyer I'll answer what might be a rhetorical question.

I find it astonishing that of two countries right beside each other,
the rich one, with around $47,000 per head GDP, manages to have a worse
infant mortality rate than the poor one, with around $9,500 per head
GDP. Especially since the rich one regularly castigates the poor one's
government.

What proportion Republican voters do you think would get the right
answer if asked 'In which country has a newborn baby a better chance of
living - *USA or Cuba'?

Lazarus

Lazarus, the difference between the IMR in the States and elsewhere
could be accounted for because lots of girls do not see a doctor. *My
own neice did not see a doctor, trying to hide it from my brother. *She
had the child and everything was ok, but she took a chance. *There are
many young girls in the inner city that do not see doctors. *I see them
every Tuesday and Thursday at the Food Pantry I help run. *It is not
because they *can't* see a doctor; they simply choose not to. *In the
States, it is illegal for a doctor to tell a minor child's parents that
she is pregnant. *It's also illegal to tell them she is on birth
control. *I would be curious to see the stats of IMR in the US before,
say, 1960.

You most certainly are wrong if you think that Cuba's health care is
better than the US, or any European country. *Poor health care in the
US is not the cause for the IMR. *I should think drugs, alcohol,
smoking, and life style are more the cause than anything else,
including fear of someone finding out about the pregnancy. *Some of the
women I see are on drugs, and they couldn't care less about themselves
OR their children. *If their health is bad, and from what I've seen it
is, their offspring hardly have a chance to survive *They're 25 or so
and look like they're 50. *Not a pretty thing.

Also, consider this (from my wife). *Technology has increased so much
in our medicine that previous births that would have been stillborns or
naturally lost during the pregnancy are now making it, at least through
birth, but die because of the complications that would have naturally
aborted the child.

So, using the IMR to compare health care as a whole is not a very
accurate benchmark. *IMO anyway.

You see, Lazarus? Your mistake is (as it has always been) an abject
failure to realize and recognize that the true metric of whatever it
is that concerns you is davie's experience (um.....or his
interpretation thereof, anyway)......well, that and
what.....dicklet.....would or would not wager on.

Why, oh WHY!, can you people not see what is so plainly writ.....and
in your own language.....more or less?

g.

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 15:48:08 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:

David LaCourse wrote:

If your health care is so great, Tim, and I have no recent experiences
to claim it is not, why do so many Canadians come to the US for
treatment. Could it be John Hopkins, Sloan Kettery, Mass General, Mass
Childrens, Mayo, etc.?

Most care is done within the country. Some folks go to the US for
procedures that cannot be done here either due to equipment or
personelle shortages, or the procedure isn't available where they live.
Canada is a big place, with not many people. If people go to the US for
legimate treatments, the costs are still covered by the provincial
governments, not the patients themselves. They still get the care, they
don't bear the direct costs.

Uh, Tim, there is no such thing as a free lunch Of course they pay,
through taxes, fees, etc. If Obama has his way, my health care costs
will go through the roof. Without tort reform (sorry Carolina guys),
the expense will always remain high. Except for the obvious blunder
(removing the left leg when the right one was the intended one), can
Canadians sue for what they *think* was malpractice? Do they? Do the
laws in Canada discourage such actions? They certainly don't in this
country.


Why do so many Americans go to Mexico for cancer treatments?

Because they are reaching for hope, because that is all they have.
Hope. They aren't cured in Mexico either. d;o(

Dave

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 16:15:40 -0400, Giles said:

taking bets on whether or not you'll get a rational response,

Taking bets on whether or not you're an asshole?

All those who think Wolfgoat is an asshole, raise your hand.

Wow. Look at that sea of hands waving in the air.

****stain.

Davey

ot health care
 

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 16:05:30 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said:

I'm glad you have the resources
to afford quality health care.

What "resourses", asshole? I have insurance the same as you. I looked
for the best doctor and easily found him.

Oh, how I hope we get socialized medicine as Obama wants it. You, Ken,
are a sick man. You will DIE when he gets his hands on you.

And no one needs to die because they do not have health care insurance.
My grandsons do not have insurance because they *chose not too*. They
get more pay because they do not have to contribute for their health
benefits.

You talk a great fight, Ken. What have you done for your community
latelly? Do you help the needy? Help the poor? Feed someone? Maybe
a family? Do you help those that have no health care find a doctor
that will treat them? Or do you sit on your fat ass complaining all
the time, complaining how ****ed up the US is. You need to live in
South or Central America. Pick a country. I recommend Panama. They'd
love your commie ass down there.

Davey
And Obama is a swarmy man who just happens to be a half-breed.

ot health care
 

On Sep 18, 4:43*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-18 15:48:08 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:

David LaCourse wrote:

If your health care is so great, Tim, and I have no recent experiences
to claim it is not, why do so many Canadians come to the US for
treatment. *Could it be John Hopkins, Sloan Kettery, Mass General, Mass
Childrens, Mayo, etc.?

Most care is done within the country. Some folks go to the US for
procedures that cannot be done here either due to equipment or
personelle shortages, or the procedure isn't available where they live.
Canada is a big place, with not many people. If people go to the US for
legimate treatments, the costs are still covered by the provincial
governments, not the patients themselves. They still get the care, they
don't bear the direct costs.

Uh, Tim, there is no such thing as a free lunch

Right! Well, not in Canuckistan.....um.....I s'pose. Murrica is a
great land. I had a free lunch here just yesterday! :)

Of course they pay, through taxes, fees, etc.

Unlike......uh.....hm.....o.k.,I confess, I'm a bit lost here. Just
who is and who is not paying through taxes, fees, surcharges, user
fees, levees, assessments, co-pays, insurance premiums, and whatnot
alls?

If Obama has his way, my health care costs will go through the roof.

Solution? Die. Win/win situation.

Without tort reform (sorry Carolina guys),

Jeff, Wayno, pay him no heed.....some people are just born
pottymouths.

the expense will always remain high.

One of those point of view thingies. Most people, in most situations,
consider consider "expense" to be high by definition.....unless it
belongs to someone else.

Except for the obvious blunder
(removing the left leg when the right one was the intended one), can
Canadians sue for what they *think* was malpractice?

Like when the doctors told your parents that you were born alive?

Do they?

I'd wager a large some (hey! how about that, huh.....dicklet?!!) that
suing for medical malpractice is a concept WAY beyond the intellectual
(let alone legal) capacity of the average Canuckistani.

Do the laws in Canada discourage such actions?

Actually, that is precisely what we were hoping you'd tell us. :
(

They certainly don't in this country.

Well, I hope I am not alone in asserting that you have irrevocably
convinced me that somebody or other doesn't somethin' or other in this
country. I pity the poor fools who think otherwise!

Why do so many Americans go to Mexico for cancer treatments?

Poor map reading skills?

Because they are reaching for hope,

Oh.

And does their reach exceed their grasp.....or ainna?

because that is all they have.

Goddamn shame. What they SHOULD have is a decent medical care system.

Hope.

Lange! What do I win? :)

They aren't cured in Mexico either.

True. Generally, they are cold-smoked.

g.
GOD! how i love learning!!

ot health care
 

David LaCourse wrote:
I don't want your
swarmy half-breed ****ing it up?



hmmmm...now i think that was an idiotic, moronic, imbecilic statement...
but i don't think dave is a ****ing creep, a goat turd, or a piece of
****. g

jeff

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 17:04:30 -0400, Bill Grey said:

In message 2009091807474016807-dplacourse@aolcom, David LaCourse
writes
On 2009-09-17 21:48:48 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:

Do you think people in Canada or Great Britain do not get to select
their own doctors?

I don't know, but I do know they seem to have to wait longer for
certain procedures. Time was very important in my case. It had to be
done NOW and was. I doubt I would have survived in Canada or GB.



Pirates get the best - if they take off their eye patches first :-)

Shhhhhhhhh, Bill. Fortenberry doesn't like to hear about success
stories in the US, unless they are linked to Obama or some other commie.

d;o)

ot health care
 

David LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry said:
I'm glad you have the resources
to afford quality health care.

What "resourses", asshole? ...
snip
And Obama is a swarmy man who just happens to be a half-breed.

You're a great Republican, Louie. Keep up the good work and ...

Carry on.

--
Ken Fortenberry

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 18:19:56 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said:

David LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry said:
I'm glad you have the resources
to afford quality health care.

What "resourses", asshole? ... snip
And Obama is a swarmy man who just happens to be a half-breed.

You're a great Republican, Louie. Keep up the good work and ...

Carry on.

Certainly will, tyvm. You, however, are pretty sick from what I hear.
Hope you called it right.

And, your reaction is exactly as I thought it would be. You have
become too easy.

Davey

ot health care
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:29:27 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:
Geez, dude - I had no idea your dad was such a mean ol' *******...

geez, I should have said, 'my entire adult life'. But, still, you dance
around the facts and, as Wolfie pointed out, the obvious method by which
insurance policies work.

OK - and to whom should the costs be passed on?

And I'm not disagreeing with the general concept that the "stronger" can
and
should help the "weaker" - or, if one prefers, the more able help the less
able
- I do take exception to the use of "fortunate" helping the
"less-fortunate"
because quite often "the fortunate" are so because of hard work and "the
less-fortunate" are so because of the lack of it. Which is one of my
points -
in this "social compact," do you feel any need to help, via your and your
family's hard work, those who simply won't work?

sorting out the extremely few who 'won't work' from those who cannot, or who
do work and cannot afford it would be a waste of time and money.

I know folks who have kept jobs that
they didn't particularly like (but could do without any negative effects
whatsoever) because of healthcare and retirement benefits.

as have I, and in most cases, it would seem to be a drag on overall
productivity, forcing folks to work in positions in which they are less than
ideal, to hold onto benefits. Can you at least concede that, in theory,
allowing folks to decide their careers based on interest and enthusiasm
might work better for a society than the current system?

Tom

ot health care
 

"David LaCourse" wrote in message
news:2009091808295675249-dplacourse@aolcom...
Richard, without a doubt, you are a bigger asshole than Fortenberry.


ahhh, we're all assholes. I doubt the size difference between the two is all
that significant.
bsegTom

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-18 18:11:11 -0400, jeff said:

David LaCourse wrote:
I don't want your swarmy half-breed ****ing it up?



hmmmm...now i think that was an idiotic, moronic, imbecilic
statement... but i don't think dave is a ****ing creep, a goat turd, or
a piece of ****. g

jeff

Well, thank you, counselor. The statement was made to incite and abet
Ken's ire. And it did. Far better than I thought it would.

I appologize to you and all other fair minded roffians.

Dave

ot health care
 

Lazarus Cooke wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Amazingly, the US manages to come even behind Cuba (5.82).
HOLY ****!! THAT IS AMAZING!! Um....why?

I think that it IS amazing.

Since you're a lawyer I'll answer what might be a rhetorical question.

I find it astonishing that of two countries right beside each other,
the rich one, with around $47,000 per head GDP, manages to have a worse
infant mortality rate than the poor one, with around $9,500 per head
GDP. Especially since the rich one regularly castigates the poor one's
government.

What proportion Republican voters do you think would get the right
answer if asked 'In which country has a newborn baby a better chance of
living - USA or Cuba'?

Lazarus

michael moore's "sicko" made the point quite well... brilliantly
even...i thought.

while i have no problem with the rich having full and free access to
their cadillac health insurance and pricey docs... my friend louie seems
to ignore that, unlike him, millions of folks have no choices, can't
afford anything, or can't afford what's offered. they deserve decent
health care. decent is all i ask, not the super-duper best doc money can
buy.

decent health care is probably near the top two or three things a
populace should expect of our government.

but then...i also think kevorkian's services should have been covered in
a basic health plan with a $30 co-pay.

jeff

ot health care
 

David LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry said:
David LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry said:
I'm glad you have the resources
to afford quality health care.

What "resourses", asshole? ... snip
And Obama is a swarmy man who just happens to be a half-breed.

You're a great Republican, Louie. Keep up the good work and ...

Carry on.

Certainly will, tyvm. You, however, are pretty sick from what I hear.
Hope you called it right. ...

There is a guy at Mayo who is the best in this country. I saw him
early on at my expense because the Mayo Clinic is "out of network"
and my health insurance didn't cover it. He recommended a course of
treatment which has been the standard in Europe for the last five
years. I paid for that myself too because my insurance company
decided the treatment was "experimental". In other words I've got
gold-plated, topnotch health insurance that ain't worth a ****.
I've paid over a quarter of a million dollars for my own health care
since I contracted this disease in April of 2006 and allegedly I have
health insurance. A once rosy looking retirement is starting to look
like "you want fries with that ?" if I live that long.

If I had called it right I'd have gone straight to Italy in 2006.
All the nephrology cases in Italy are seen by the same small group
of nephrologists at the same hospital so they see more of this disease
in a year than most American specialists see in a career. And I'd have
saved a bundle.

--
Ken Fortenberry