|
|
ot health care
a collection of thoughts on the topic at hand:
First, it is truly comical the BS that passes for American views of other nations healthcare in this debate. That is, it would be comical if it weren't, at times, coming from elected officials sworn to be acting in the public's interest. Second, the US system is SO ****ed up as to be a truly daunting challenge to rectify. A few key items: 1. We charge massive tuition for doctors to become educated in the field. Other nations feel it to be in their national interest not to saddle physicians with huge personal debts. 2. Our system of malpractice litigation leads to massive increases in costs and further, to defensive medical practices that do little to benefit the patient. 3. Our insurance industry runs with huge overhead costs and generates exceptional profits. Healthcare should never have been made a business in the first place. As Jeff stated, basic, quality care should be a right of everyone from birth, in this country. 4. We compensate providers on the basis of fee for service, rather than by diagnosis and outcome. This nearly guarantees inflated services and fraudulant billing. This applies to doctors, hospitals, laboratories, etc. and, those are just the high(or low) points. The problem, as I see it, is that fixing the mess will require a VERY drastic overhaul, and I frankly do not see any political will to change to the extent needed. Half-measures and gradual measures will, as likely as not, actually make the problems of undercoverage, price gouging and bad outcomes worse. Obama has it right when he states that, left in the status quo, healthcare will bankrupt the Federal and State budgets and impoverish many more citizens, as time goes on. Thus, healthcare reform ought to be the nation's utmost domestic priority. To have it sullied with the absolute nonsense, such as bogus claims of the shortcomings of other nations, 'death panels', and the like is close to a national disgrace. Folks like Louie cry that 'my taxes will go up!!', while I sit here figuring mine probably wouldn't go up, under a single-payer model, more than the $14,000-plus in premiums I am currently paying. Add in out-of pocket debacles like Ken cites, and for many folks, such a system would prove a godsend. I despair that anything will come of the current debate other than a half-baked compromise that the luddites can point to in 6 or 7 years and say, "look! Healthcare reform is a failure". That saddens me. .....just one person's opinion. No, I haven't any personal experience will the healthcare systems of other nations, but, I have spent the past 30 years working in our healthcare system, and know something is very, very wrong...... Tom |
ot health care
David LaCourse wrote:
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. I don't pay health care insurance premiums. I do pay taxes, and that's what covers my health care. My taxes are not much higher, if at all, than those in the US. If I have to have an expensive procedure, it is covered. If I have surgery, I do not pay extra fees. If my wife has a child, we do not pay extra fees. That's how it works for us. We think governments should look after people's health care.It works well for us, regardless of what you think and what propaganda you listen to. I really cannot understand the objection that many in the US seem to have to making health care affordable for all its citizens. Tim Lysyk |
ot health care
On 2009-09-18 18:38:04 -0400, jeff said:
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. Whoa! Hold on there, friend. I do not nor have I ever had full and free access to cadillac health insurance and pricey docs. I was on Joanne's Verizon health care, the same health care that EVERYONE in the company had. It was the same health care as the secretaries, electricians, plumbers, PhDs, Vice Prez, etc. Nothing special about it except it allowed you to choose your own doctor. I doubt Obama's plan will allow that, but who knows? decent health care is probably near the top two or three things a populace should expect of our government. I am not against health care for all, Jeffy. I just think that the US government should not RUN it. What does the U.S. government run well anymore? Hell, they can't even run a war correctly, and certainly not Social Security, AmTrac, or anything else. What are we to do if our DC government runs health care into a giant bottomless money pit the way they have Social Security. The fine Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a free health care plan - no one in Mass goes without health care. The govenor and the State House has run up a 2 billion dollar deficit in just a couple of years, and that deficit is climbing at an alarming rate. It works, but at what expense? Who is going to pay for it? There are not enough tax payers in the state to do it. I have friends that are unemployed and work at the food pantry for their weekly groceries. THEY have health care, and from what I have seen, it is pretty good. One woman suffers from seisures and sees a doctor amost weekly. She ended up in Saints Med Center in Lowell where she stayed free of charge for three or four days. All of her anti-seisure medicine is free. Another young man has a 59 yo father dying of bone cancer and sees a doc regularly free of charge. The figures I hear bouncing around are 47 million uninsured. Thirty million of those 47 are like my grandsons - they choose not to take the health care provided by their employers, and take home more pay that way. When I was at GTE, we had a choice of accepting the health care (and paying some of the costs), or not. Most everyone chose the health care insurance and its incumpent expenses. Insure the remaining 17 million, implement tort reform so that millions of dollars are not spent on frivolous lawsuits, or paid out because a doctor could not control what went wrong. Your own John Edwards made a fortune practicing malpractice suits. But, don't throw out the baby with the wash water. There is no way on God's green earth that Obama can implement health care reform without adding to an already bulging deficit. And if he does, leave my health care alone, or give me what Rangle, Reed, and Pelosi have. And, don't make me pay taxes on $75,000. If it's good enough for Charlie, it be good enough for the Pirate. Dave |
ot health care
"David LaCourse" wrote in message news:2009091819385544303-dplacourse@aolcom... The figures I hear bouncing around are 47 million uninsured. Thirty million of those 47 are like my grandsons - they choose not to take the health care provided by their employers, and take home more pay that way. your figure of 30 million is nothing short of fiction. Despite that, let's look at what those noble(generally young) folks are doing to the overall system by their choice. First, it raises the premium costs by tilting the average healthcare cost of those in the pool. Second, when those uninsured younger folks get a catastrophic illness or injury, they can't pay the bills, which then get passed along to those of us who can. Still another fine example of the half-assed mess of a national system we have in this nation. Thanks for the lucid example. Tom |
ot health care
On 2009-09-18 19:31:43 -0400, "Tom Littleton" said:
Folks like Louie cry that 'my taxes will go up!!', I cried that? Hmmm, don't remember it. We now pay a far higher tax rate than you, I imagine, and we aren't even working! But that's part of doing business in the good ole usofa. I *did* say that our asshole Govenor took a state that was fairly even cash wise and put us into $2,000,000,000.00 debt faster than I can say "Mass politics suck." And, taxes will probably go up to pay for it. (Not to worry: Joanne and I are leaving the state in the near future for the mountains of Georgia.) If you will read my reply to Jeff, I state that I am not against health care reform. Something has to be done. But giving it over to the same people that brought us the bottomless money pit soon to be bankrupt Social Security, the same folks that can't decide how to run or win a war, the same folks that brought us AmTrac, the same folks that chastise a boorish Wilson but let Charie Rangel run free, the same folks that gave us Nancy and Harry - uhuh, it ain't gonna wash, Tom. Giving the DC government free run on health care is the worst thing we could possible do. Reform it. Get those uninsured on insurance. Make it so that when you change jobs your insurance goes with you. Do away with the "existing condition" bull****, but DON'T let the Federal Government run it, and don't try to pull the wool over our eyes by saing, "It will not add to the deficit." Ask Deval Patrick about *that* one. It WILL cost us and that means more taxes for EVERYONE, including those that do not now pay taxes. Dave |
ot health care
"David LaCourse" wrote in message news:2009091821114433169-dplacourse@aolcom... It WILL cost us and that means more taxes for EVERYONE, including those that do not now pay taxes. Dave see, you did it, alreadyg. Anyhow, higher taxes without health insurance premiums is a good deal for most American citizens. I can't speak to the individual bills for you and Joanne, any more than you should guess about my tax bills. Sort of like guessing what other nations' healthcare systems are....if you don't have the facts, you're wasting everyone's time. By the way, I hope the move the the mountains of Georgia is enjoyable. You might, however, get another chance to provide us with examples of our National Healthcare system, when you compare the nature of your care in the state of GA to what your situation is, currently, in Mass. Another issue the nation faces is very wide discrepancies between various locales, and available treatment, no matter which insurance one carries....... Tom p.s 'governement run', you say?? Howcome Medicare operates at a vastly more efficient level of overhead than most private insurers??(and, I am not referring to reimbursement levels, just operational costs). |
ot health care
On 18-Sep-2009, David LaCourse wrote: Sure do. Ever heard of Fawn Lake in Montana? Ask Fortenberry about it. He was there once. Dave We used to motor on our 17ft boat 15 or so miles up to where it hits the Rapid and there was a great campsite right there There was also a French woman who ran a hotel and rented cabins- in Chesuncook Village pop 5 Ken- What about Fawn Lake??? - another inside joke? Fred |
ot health care
On 2009-09-18 19:37:39 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:
David LaCourse wrote: 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. I don't pay health care insurance premiums. I do pay taxes, and that's what covers my health care. My taxes are not much higher, if at all, than those in the US. If I have to have an expensive procedure, it is covered. If I have surgery, I do not pay extra fees. If my wife has a child, we do not pay extra fees. That's how it works for us. We think governments should look after people's health care.It works well for us, regardless of what you think and what propaganda you listen to. I had over $100,000 in surgery, health care, etc with my prostate cancer. It didn't cost me anything except about $1000 in premiums. My first wife had both of our children in military hospitals - not the best of care, but it was at least free. My monthly medicine costs someone several hundred dollars each month, but it costs me zip, nada, zilch. I really cannot understand the objection that many in the US seem to have to making health care affordable for all its citizens. ' Tim, most do NOT feel that way. Most do not want the Democrats running it. Can you not see what a mess our government has made of Social Security, the military, Amtrak, or anything else they touch with their greedy little fingers? Government care might work in Canada with a population of 33 million, but we have California with more than your population. Throw in the entire country with a population almost ten times that of Canada, and you have problems. Given that the UK, Canada, France, and Germany do not have a combined population anywhere near what we have, you have a problem. What works for you and the UK may not work for us. And, does Canada and the UK have as much government corruption as we have? Do you have lobbyists that make more money than our President? Do you have ParliamentCritters that do not have to PAY taxes but WRITE your taxes? WE DO. We have a third world government, full of corruption on both sides of the aisle. Do you have all the money and more that you made in the past 8 years? Have you ever had a Prime Minister that did? We have. Turn over 1/6th of our economy to yet another government agency to run and there will be insurmountable problems, more bureaucracy than man has ever seen before, and all of them will be Democrats so they can vote in more people like themselves. Our government is already an animal in the process of eating itself. Dave You still haven't answer the question: Can you sue your health care giver, your doctor, because he did what he thought was correct? |
ot health care
On Sep 18, 5:34*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"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 It ain't so much the size......it's whether or not it's paid for. g. |
ot health care
Fred wrote:
Ken- What about Fawn Lake??? - another inside joke? There is no Fawn Lake. One of the roff regulars recommended to a total Yellowstone newbie asking for advice that it might be a good idea to go into grizzly country in September based on what he'd heard from an outfitter. Destination; Fawn Lake. In September, there is no Fawn Lake. Long story short, many roffians hiked all the way up to that occasional lake, mostly weeds "destination", few, if any, fish were caught but proof positive was allegedly proffered that something called "Fawn Lake" exists in June. So yeah, inside joke. I lost a bet with another roffian when the "pertinacious prove Forty wrong posse" declined to waste a precious day of their Yellowstone vacation on the third, fourth or fifth year of the "Fawn Lake" joke. I coulda swore I had those suckers gut hooked but then I didn't hike all the way up there near as many times as they did. LOL !! -- Ken Fortenberry |
ot health care
On Sep 18, 4:46*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
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. Moron. g. |
ot health care
David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-18 19:37:39 -0400, Tim Lysyk said: I had over $100,000 in surgery, health care, etc with my prostate cancer. It didn't cost me anything except about $1000 in premiums. My first wife had both of our children in military hospitals - not the best of care, but it was at least free. My monthly medicine costs someone several hundred dollars each month, but it costs me zip, nada, zilch. Same for me, only I don't pay any premiums. You almost sound Canadian, Dave! But, see Ken`s post earlier, that insurance wise, things didnt work out so well for him. Tim, most do NOT feel that way. Most do not want the Democrats running it. Can you not see what a mess our government has made of Social Security, the military, Amtrak, or anything else they touch with their greedy little fingers? Government care might work in Canada with a population of 33 million, but we have California with more than your population. Throw in the entire country with a population almost ten times that of Canada, and you have problems. Given that the UK, Canada, France, and Germany do not have a combined population anywhere near what we have, you have a problem. What works for you and the UK may not work for us. Exactly, so I dont understand why there is so much negaive press in the US about the Canadian system, and why I continue to hear so many negative comments from Americans about Canadian health care. . And, does Canada and the UK have as much government corruption as we have? Do you have lobbyists that make more money than our President? Do you have ParliamentCritters that do not have to PAY taxes but WRITE your taxes? WE DO. We have a third world government, full of corruption on both sides of the aisle. Do you have all the money and more that you made in the past 8 years? Have you ever had a Prime Minister that did? We have. Turn over 1/6th of our economy to yet another government agency to run and there will be insurmountable problems, more bureaucracy than man has ever seen before, and all of them will be Democrats so they can vote in more people like themselves. Our government is already an animal in the process of eating itself. So the problem is....you dont trust your government at all.That sucks. Can`t say I love my elected officials, but the rank and file of the civil service are pretty good. Oh yeah...I`m one of them. Dave You still haven't answer the question: Can you sue your health care giver, your doctor, because he did what he thought was correct? Sure we can sue. We have malpractice cases in Canada. I would presume, but dont know for sure, that in almost malpractice cases the doctor did what he thought was correct. If he did something he thought was incorrect, I suspect it might become a criminal matter, but I am no lawyer. here`s a link about malpractice cases in Canada: http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/html/myth21_e.php Tim Lysyk |
ot health care
On Sep 18, 8:48*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-18 19:37:39 -0400, Tim Lysyk said: David LaCourse wrote: 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. I don't pay health care insurance premiums. I do pay taxes, and that's what covers my health care. My taxes are not much higher, if at all, than those in the US. *If I have to have an expensive procedure, it is covered. *If I have surgery, I do not pay extra fees. If my wife has a child, we do not pay extra fees. That's how it works for us. We think governments should look after people's health care.It works well for us, regardless of what you think and what propaganda you listen to. I had over $100,000 in surgery, health care, etc with my prostate cancer. *It didn't cost me anything except about $1000 in premiums. *My first wife had both of our children in military hospitals - not the best of care, but it was at least free. *My monthly medicine costs someone several hundred dollars each month, but it costs me zip, nada, zilch. I really cannot understand the objection that many in the US seem to have to making health care affordable for all its citizens. ' Tim, most do NOT feel that way. *Most do not want the Democrats running it. *Can you not see what a mess our government has made of Social Security, the military, Amtrak, or anything else they touch with their greedy little fingers? *Government care might work in *Canada with a population of 33 million, but we have California with more than your population. *Throw in the entire country with a population almost ten times that of Canada, and you have problems. *Given that the UK, Canada, France, and Germany do not have a combined population anywhere near what we have, *you have a problem. *What works for you and the UK may not work for us. *And, does Canada and the UK have as much government corruption as we have? *Do you have lobbyists that make more money than our President? * Do you have ParliamentCritters that do not have to PAY taxes but WRITE your taxes? *WE DO. *We have a third world government, full of corruption on both sides of the aisle. *Do you have all the money and more that you made in the past 8 years? *Have you ever had a Prime Minister that did? *We have. *Turn over 1/6th of our economy to yet another government agency to run and there will be insurmountable problems, more bureaucracy than man has ever seen before, and all of them will be Democrats so they can vote in more people like themselves. *Our government is already an animal in the process of eating itself. Dave You still haven't answer the question: *Can you sue your health care giver, your doctor, because he did what he thought was correct?- Well, there it is boys and girls. Anyone care to discuss this matter further? :) g. |
ot health care
On 2009-09-18 21:38:29 -0400, "Fred" said:
On 18-Sep-2009, David LaCourse wrote: Sure do. Ever heard of Fawn Lake in Montana? Ask Fortenberry about it. He was there once. Dave We used to motor on our 17ft boat 15 or so miles up to where it hits the Rapid and there was a great campsite right there There was also a French woman who ran a hotel and rented cabins- in Chesuncook Village pop 5 The Chesuncook is nowhere near the Rapid, Fred. You are thinking of the West Branch of the Penobscott. Floated it last fall and took some nice brook trout and landlocked salmon. The Rapid flows into Umbagog Lake, as does the Magaloway. The output of Umbagog is the Androscoggin River. Ken- What about Fawn Lake??? - another inside joke? Fred Forty claims there is no Fawn Lake, that it is nothing but a weed bed and totally unfishable. One of roff's more reliable sources of information, Jeff Miller, hiked up to the lake and fished it. Took pictures of it. (???) Trust Miller. d;o) Dave |
ot health care
David LaCourse wrote:
Did I tell you I am very happy with my health care and I don't want your swarmy half-breed ****ing it up? So you don't want the government ****ing up your Medicare? Sheesh. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
ot health care
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:33:05 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
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. Like I stated in a reply to jeff, I don't read most of Wolfie's stuff, so I don't know what he said. IAC, since there are multiple types of "insurance policies," there is no singular "method" by which they work that would seem relevant to this discussion. Further, I'm not "dancing" around anything because there is nothing to dance around - you haven't given any (substantive) yet. I asked two simple questions: at what point to you feel your obligation to pay for the healthcare of others ends and at what point to you feel others' obligation to pay for yours ends? And while you were certainly free to answer them or otherwise respond, I posed them to Lazarus. 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. Why? 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? No, I cannot and will not concede that. Further, "forcing" covers a lot of ground - do I think putting a gun to someone's back and making them into slave labor is OK? Of course not. OTOH, do I any sympathy for someone who quits a decent job with good bennies they simply don't luv-L-O-V-E!!! and suffers consequences for having made that choice? None - zero - nada - zip. And that's my point about such folks - life isn't always "fair" - often, it's about choices, and choices have consequences. And I don't think you, me, or anyone else should have to bear the consequences, for those types of choices, for others. Now, if you simply want me to concede that in some mythical, completely unrealistic place, filled with people who have mythical, completely unrealistic traits (and few actual real-world human characteristics), allowing those "people" to all pick and choose what they wish to do will make them all whistle while they work, OK, sure - you're making this up, so I'll concede that you can make it up however you wish. But while you're planning, I'd suggest that you make damned sure that you match up desire with need absolutely perfectly - I mean dead-nut, not even a blond ****hair off _PERFECT_ - or someone is gonna be, um, less than ideally happy with the situation... TC, R Tom |
ot health care
Tim, I just discovered something about health care in your country and
in the UK. Canada limits payments in medical lawsuits to $300,000. There have been incidents in the U.S. where the payment is more than 10 times that. Also, the UK has a no-win/pay system which does away with almost all frivolous lawsuits. You sue your care giver, you lose, YOU pay. If only those two systems could be implemented here in the States and you would see healthcare costs go down drastically. BUT, it ain't gonna happen. The trial attorney lobbyists give too much money to the president and Congress. Dave |
ot health care
David LaCourse wrote:
Tim, I just discovered something about health care in your country and in the UK. Canada limits payments in medical lawsuits to $300,000. There have been incidents in the U.S. where the payment is more than 10 times that. Also, the UK has a no-win/pay system which does away with almost all frivolous lawsuits. You sue your care giver, you lose, YOU pay. If only those two systems could be implemented here in the States and you would see healthcare costs go down drastically. BUT, it ain't gonna happen. The trial attorney lobbyists give too much money to the president and Congress. Tort reform has been implemented in Texas and while it saves doctors about $50 million a year in premiums it hasn't dropped the health care costs of the consumer one friggin' whit, much less drastically. Yet another Republican myth with no basis in fact. -- Ken Fortenberry |
ot health care
On 19-Sep-2009, David LaCourse wrote:
he Chesuncook is nowhere near the Rapid, Fred. You are thinking of the West Branch of the Penobscott. Floated it last fall and took some nice brook trout and landlocked salmon. You are right - Its been a long time I read where the inn was sold and there is trouble in Chesuncook Village http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/ne...03nemitz.shtml The brook trout were beautiful and VERY tasty and the salmon were great also and I am leaving for Fawn Lake tomw Fred |
ot health care
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:31:43 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
a collection of thoughts on the topic at hand: First, it is truly comical the BS that passes for American views of other nations healthcare in this debate. That is, it would be comical if it weren't, at times, coming from elected officials sworn to be acting in the public's interest. Second, the US system is SO ****ed up as to be a truly daunting challenge to rectify. A few key items: 1. We charge massive tuition for doctors to become educated in the field. Other nations feel it to be in their national interest not to saddle physicians with huge personal debts. True, but "we" then allow "them" to "make up for it" by charging and making a pretty penny. I realize not all doctors are "wealthy" and most don't start out rolling in it, but damned few take chickens and farm products in trade nowadays, too....most US doctors are pretty well-off (if they don't **** it away). 2. Our system of malpractice litigation leads to massive increases in costs and further, to defensive medical practices that do little to benefit the patient. I've heard in this "debate," in/on the mass media, a neurosurgeon bemoan the fact that malpractice insurance cost him 10% of his take-home income and he expected it to increase to nearly 15%. He later stated that he felt that it was ridiculous that he had to pay $200,000.00USD for malpractice insurance - I'll allow the reader to do the math. Long story short, I know quite a few doctors, and damned few of them are living in mobile home parks, driving old clunkers, and eating free cheese on dry day-old bread. 3. Our insurance industry runs with huge overhead costs and generates exceptional profits. Healthcare should never have been made a business in the first place. As Jeff stated, basic, quality care should be a right of everyone from birth, in this country. Why? Now, I'd agree that "society" should help those who cannot help themselves, within reason, but I do not agree that _everyone_ has the _right_ to anything in this country, nor do I feel that those who can but won't help themselves have a _right_ to health care. 4. We compensate providers on the basis of fee for service, rather than by diagnosis and outcome. This nearly guarantees inflated services and fraudulant billing. This applies to doctors, hospitals, laboratories, etc. and, those are just the high(or low) points. The problem, as I see it, is that fixing the mess will require a VERY drastic overhaul, and I frankly do not see any political will to change to the extent needed. Half-measures and gradual measures will, as likely as not, actually make the problems of undercoverage, price gouging and bad outcomes worse. Obama has it right when he states that, left in the status quo, healthcare will bankrupt the Federal and State budgets and impoverish many more citizens, as time goes on. Thus, healthcare reform ought to be the nation's utmost domestic priority. To have it sullied with the absolute nonsense, such as bogus claims of the shortcomings of other nations, 'death panels', and the like is close to a national disgrace. Folks like Louie cry that 'my taxes will go up!!', while I sit here figuring mine probably wouldn't go up, under a single-payer model, more than the $14,000-plus in premiums I am currently paying. Add in out-of pocket debacles like Ken cites, and for many folks, such a system would prove a godsend. I despair that anything will come of the current debate other than a half-baked compromise that the luddites can point to in 6 or 7 years and say, "look! Healthcare reform is a failure". That saddens me. ....just one person's opinion. No, I haven't any personal experience will the healthcare systems of other nations, but, I have spent the past 30 years working in our healthcare system, and know something is very, very wrong...... Tom The real core issue is that "health care" has become VERY big business, yet many want to treat it as primarily a social service (look no further than your and jeff's feeling that "everyone has a right..." etc., etc.). Furthermore, damned few are prepared to answer the questions I asked - "At what point do you feel that obligations end?" Let's distill it down in an admittedly extreme example: Suppose there are only 100 people in an imaginary little near-utopia. 3 are doctors who are, magically, complete and total experts in every aspect of medicine - they are the sum total of man's current medical knowledge. There is a 5 room hospital with every possible medical device, lab, etc. - it represents the sum total of man's medical "equipment." There is a single admin guy who can do it all (you know, sort of a Wayne Knight type...) and 2 nurses who can handle all those duties. The rest of the population consists of 85 people who work hard and for the most part, meet all of our little society's needs, and they are in a socio-economic hierarchy that roughly approximates that of the US - occasionally a small number aren't needed, so they are temporarily unoccupied, but they remain ready and willing to jump right back in and produce. There are 4 people who cannot produce anything (let's just say they are legitimately unable, for whatever reason), but the bulk of the population wants to support them reasonably but modestly. And then, there are 5 that just say, "**** it, I don't want to work..." At first, the rest don't worry too much about it and give them a little something - mere subsistence at best. But then, one of the layabouts gets REALLY sick, and being a good little society, the producers produce the extra it takes to fix them up. Then another gets sorta sick...and the producers produce. And then, before you know it, the non-producers are really taxing the system, and before you know it, one of the producers says, "hey, ya know, I think I'll just say I don't want to work, too..." And then another... At what point do the producers get to say, "Hey, enough is enough..."? Or, do you feel they don't have that right? HTH, R |
ot health care
On 2009-09-19 12:40:36 -0400, "Fred" said:
On 19-Sep-2009, David LaCourse wrote: he Chesuncook is nowhere near the Rapid, Fred. You are thinking of the West Branch of the Penobscott. Floated it last fall and took some nice brook trout and landlocked salmon. You are right - Its been a long time I read where the inn was sold and there is trouble in Chesuncook Village http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/ne...03nemitz.shtml The brook trout were beautiful and VERY tasty and the salmon were great also and I am leaving for Fawn Lake tomw Fred Yeah. Heard about that squabble a couple of years ago. I think it is all over now. Never have fished the lake, but try to get up to The Big Eddy once in awhile. Lots of very big fish in the Eddy. It certainly is a beautiful part of the country. Enjoy Fawn Lake. From the pictures I saw, it looks like a wonderful place to wet a fly. |
ot health care
On 2009-09-19 11:45:29 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said: David LaCourse wrote: Tim, I just discovered something about health care in your country and in the UK. Canada limits payments in medical lawsuits to $300,000. There have been incidents in the U.S. where the payment is more than 10 times that. Also, the UK has a no-win/pay system which does away with almost all frivolous lawsuits. You sue your care giver, you lose, YOU pay. If only those two systems could be implemented here in the States and you would see healthcare costs go down drastically. BUT, it ain't gonna happen. The trial attorney lobbyists give too much money to the president and Congress. Tort reform has been implemented in Texas and while it saves doctors about $50 million a year in premiums it hasn't dropped the health care costs of the consumer one friggin' whit, much less drastically. Yet another Republican myth with no basis in fact. Could it, just possibly, be the reason that UK and Canada have lower health care costs that we do? You continuously bitch and moan about everything in the U.S. of A, but you do nothing to help. You have no ideas but back a swarmy president who will go down in history as a dreaming fool. Tort reform is a necessity if health care is to succeed. I know, I know: The Dems get much of their treasury from trial lawyers.............. your slip is showing. Davey |
ot health care
David LaCourse wrote:
Could it, just possibly, be the reason that UK and Canada have lower health care costs that we do? You continuously bitch and moan about everything in the U.S. of A, but you do nothing to help. You have no ideas but back a swarmy president who will go down in history as a dreaming fool. Tort reform is a necessity if health care is to succeed. I know, I know: The Dems get much of their treasury from trial lawyers.............. your slip is showing. If they'd ****ed up your prostrate treatment you'd be singing a different tune. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
ot health care
David LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry said: David LaCourse wrote: Canada limits payments in medical lawsuits to $300,000. There have been incidents in the U.S. where the payment is more than 10 times that. Also, the UK has a no-win/pay system which does away with almost all frivolous lawsuits. You sue your care giver, you lose, YOU pay. If only those two systems could be implemented here in the States and you would see healthcare costs go down drastically. BUT, it ain't gonna happen. The trial attorney lobbyists give too much money to the president and Congress. Tort reform has been implemented in Texas and while it saves doctors about $50 million a year in premiums it hasn't dropped the health care costs of the consumer one friggin' whit, much less drastically. Yet another Republican myth with no basis in fact. Could it, just possibly, be the reason that UK and Canada have lower health care costs that we do? ... If you want to read a clear-headed, brutally honest, nonpartisan essay on what is wrong with the American health-care industry you should read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care You have no ideas but back a swarmy president who will go down in history as a dreaming fool. The word you're trying to use is smarmy. Tort reform is a necessity if health care is to succeed. ... Tort reform is a Republican red herring. -- Ken Fortenberry |
ot health care
On 2009-09-19 16:22:00 -0400, rw said:
David LaCourse wrote: Could it, just possibly, be the reason that UK and Canada have lower health care costs that we do? You continuously bitch and moan about everything in the U.S. of A, but you do nothing to help. You have no ideas but back a swarmy president who will go down in history as a dreaming fool. Tort reform is a necessity if health care is to succeed. I know, I know: The Dems get much of their treasury from trial lawyers.............. your slip is showing. If they'd ****ed up your prostrate treatment you'd be singing a different tune. And if the dog didn't stop to take a **** he would have caught the rabbit. I went in expecting the worse because of how big the GS was. If I came out alive, I would have been happy. We were fortunate enough to have found a perfect team. The same doctor did the same procedure on two friends. Both of those procedures were also successful. Dave |
ot health care
On 2009-09-19 16:30:19 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said: Tort reform is a Republican red herring. Tort reform works in Canada and the UK. It will never work here because trial lawyers give to much money to the president and congress. And yes, he is smarmy. |
ot health care
David LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry said: Tort reform is a Republican red herring. Tort reform works in Canada and the UK. That may be, but as Texas proves tort reform doesn't lower health care costs in the US. The cost of defensive medicine is grossly exaggerated as is the cost of lawsuits. They are but a drop in the bucket and a distraction. If physicians would keep their house in order and discipline the incompetents instead of covering their asses there would not be a need for tort reform. As it is lawsuits are the last resort against the incompetent and if you've ever been involved in a medical malpractice lawsuit you'd realize just how difficult it is to prove incompetence and how few lawsuits are frivolous. It's not tort reform that makes single payer a better health care system. What makes single payer better is it removes the profit motive from health care. Some things just don't fit the capitalist mold and health care is one of them. -- Ken Fortenberry |
ot health care
On Sep 19, 6:19*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
If I came out alive, I would have been happy. O.k., now, THAT explains a lot. g, |
ot health care
David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-19 16:30:19 -0400, Ken Fortenberry said: Tort reform is a Republican red herring. Tort reform works in Canada and the UK. It will never work here because trial lawyers give to much money to the president and congress. And yes, he is smarmy. I'm not really convinced the malpractice thing is a major cause for the difference in health care costs between US and Canada or anywhere. There are a lot of other differnces, and it is pretty complex. For example, I think Ken may have mentioned that in a single payer system, there is a lot less that has to be invested in administrative costs to deal with collecting from and fighting with insurance companies. There are also other reasons why the payouts in Canadian cases are so low....the person on the receiveing end doesn;t have to pay a lot of extra bills to fix the mistake. There are a lot of other considerations as well, Canadian doctors don't make as much as US doctors, they don;t have the educational debt to pay off as much as US doctors (they still have that debt, its just not as much). The whole health care thing is so very complex that I don't think it can be boiled down into a simple issue. Tim Lysyk |
ot health care
David LaCourse wrote:
Our government is already an animal in the process of eating itself. Dave You still haven't answer the question: Can you sue your health care giver, your doctor, because he did what he thought was correct? In most states, and in the federal system, there is a legal doctrine called "sovereign immunity" that prevents or limits the right to sue the government. another reason a governmental health plan ought to make tort reformers happy. jeff |
ot health care
On 2009-09-19 22:21:39 -0400, Tim Lysyk said:
David LaCourse wrote: On 2009-09-19 16:30:19 -0400, Ken Fortenberry said: Tort reform is a Republican red herring. Tort reform works in Canada and the UK. It will never work here because trial lawyers give to much money to the president and congress. And yes, he is smarmy. I think Ken may have mentioned that in a single payer system, there is a lot less that has to be invested in administrative costs to deal with collecting from and fighting with insurance companies. Ah, yes. Yet another bureaucracy. Things do not work the same here as in Canada, Tim. Give government a foot in the door and there will soon be a bureacracy so big, it would not be efficient. The u.s. gov has made a mess of everything it touches, including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, VA care, Amtrac. Giving them 1/6 of the u.s. economy would be inviting disaster. Health care for everyone would be the correct thing to do, but do not allow the feds to run it. There has to be a better way. Correct what is wrong instead of redistrubing the available resources. If Obama takes from one program (say, Medicare) to give to those that have no care, that is redistribution of wealth, and it is exactly what he would like to do. Leave capitalism alone. It works. Communism does not - even the nations practicing it now rely on capitalism. Why? Beause it works. Fix what is wrong and don't throw out the baby with the wash water. Our health care is the best in the world. Expensive, yes, but the best. Surely we can find a better way than turning over 1/6 of our economy to a system that has a history of ineffeciancy. Going fishing. Late already. Dave |
ot health care
David LaCourse wrote:
Tim Lysyk said: I think Ken may have mentioned that in a single payer system, there is a lot less that has to be invested in administrative costs to deal with collecting from and fighting with insurance companies. Ah, yes. Yet another bureaucracy. ... A government bureaucracy focused on providing health care would be a hell of a lot better than an insurance company bureaucracy focused on screwing customers over to make a profit. Those who complain about government bureaucrats have never tried to reason with insurance company bureaucrats. Give government a foot in the door and there will soon be a bureacracy so big, it would not be efficient. The u.s. gov has made a mess of everything it touches, including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, VA care, Amtrac. Giving them 1/6 of the u.s. economy would be inviting disaster. ... Most people like their Medicare just fine and Medicare is a far more efficient provider of health care than the private sector. Yet another Republican myth with no basis in fact. Our health care is the best in the world. ... Actually the World Health Organization ranks US health care 37th in the world. Yet another Republican myth with no basis in fact. The fact is, France has the best health care in the world. -- Ken Fortenberry |
ot health care
On Sep 18, 9:11*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
Get those uninsured on insurance. How do you propose to pay for it? *Make it so that when you change jobs your insurance goes with you. How do you propose to make it work in a self - insured environment? To a certain extent it does for 18 months now provided one wishes to pay the COBRA rates or do you mean the former employee should have the ability to continue to pay the subsidized premium only? If Jack leaves Sprint for AT&T should Sprint have to continue to cover his healthcare costs while working for a competitor who may or may not offer the same benefit level? Or are you suggesting, without stating such, that employer based health insurance should go away too? DON'T let the Federal Government run it, Which is a strange thing to say, given the Feds already run and pay for a good bit of healthcare both directly and indirectly. Between your military time, Champus, VA, and now Medicare, you've been exposed to it as well as any other lay person out there. saying, "It will not add to the deficit." Silly boys we are, deficits are for starting wars with countries (those without Chinese or Russian backing I might add) that "might" pose a threat to the USA at some point in the future |
ot health care
On Sep 20, 8:13*am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-19 22:21:39 -0400, Tim Lysyk said: David LaCourse wrote: On 2009-09-19 16:30:19 -0400, Ken Fortenberry said: Tort reform is a Republican red herring. Tort reform works in Canada and the UK. *It will never work here because trial lawyers give to much money to the president and congress.. And yes, he is smarmy. I think Ken may have mentioned that in a single payer system, there is a lot less that has to be invested in administrative costs to deal with collecting from and fighting with insurance companies. Ah, yes. *Yet another bureaucracy. *Things do not work the same here as in Canada, Tim. *Give government a foot in the door and there will soon be a bureacracy so big, it would not be efficient. *The u.s. gov has made a mess of everything it touches, including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, VA care, Amtrac. *Giving them 1/6 of the u.s. economy would be inviting disaster. Health care for everyone would be the correct thing to do, but do not allow the feds to run it. *There has to be a better way. *Correct what is wrong instead of redistrubing the available resources. * If Obama takes from one program (say, Medicare) to give to those that have no care, that is redistribution of wealth, and it is exactly what he would like to do. *Leave capitalism alone. *It works. *Communism does not - even the nations practicing it now rely on capitalism. *Why? *Beause it works. *Fix what is wrong and don't throw out the baby with the wash water. *Our health care is the best in the world. *Expensive, yes, but the best. *Surely we can find a better way than turning over 1/6 of our economy to a system that has a history of ineffeciancy. Going fishing. *Late already. Dave You should listen to davie, Tim. After all, he's been sucking on the government tit for a lifetime.....actually, more than one, depending on how you count. :) g. |
ot health care
On 2009-09-20 20:23:14 -0400, Giles said:
On Sep 20, 8:13*am, David LaCourse wrote: On 2009-09-19 22:21:39 -0400, Tim Lysyk said: David LaCourse wrote: On 2009-09-19 16:30:19 -0400, Ken Fortenberry said: Tort reform is a Republican red herring. Tort reform works in Canada and the UK. *It will never work here because trial lawyers give to much money to the president and congress . And yes, he is smarmy. I think Ken may have mentioned that in a single payer system, there is a lot less that has to be invested in administrative costs to deal with collecting from and fighting with insurance companies. Ah, yes. *Yet another bureaucracy. *Things do not work the same here as in Canada, Tim. *Give government a foot in the door and there will soon be a bureacracy so big, it would not be efficient. *The u.s. gov has made a mess of everything it touches, including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, VA care, Amtrac. *Giving them 1/6 of the u.s. economy would be inviting disaster. Health care for everyone would be the correct thing to do, but do not allow the feds to run it. *There has to be a better way. *Correct wha t is wrong instead of redistrubing the available resources. * If Obama takes from one program (say, Medicare) to give to those that have no care, that is redistribution of wealth, and it is exactly what he would like to do. *Leave capitalism alone. *It works. *Communism does not - even the nations practicing it now rely on capitalism. *Why? *Beause it works. *Fix what is wrong and don't throw out the baby with the wash water. *Our health care is the best in the world. *Expensive, yes, bu t the best. *Surely we can find a better way than turning over 1/6 of our economy to a system that has a history of ineffeciancy. Going fishing. *Late already. Dave You should listen to davie, Tim. After all, he's been sucking on the government tit for a lifetime.....actually, more than one, depending on how you count. :) g. Yeah! Ain't it great, Wolfgang? Twenty years in the military working for a stipend, then another stipend when I retired, then SS at age 62.5 (yet another stipend). And now Medicare. Sure am glad I worked hard after my military career and have that nice civilian retirement from GTE. What's that - three incomes. Well, actually one income from the GTE career and $30,000 stipend from the Guvverment. Niiiiiiice. It does allow for some great fishing in Alaska, Russia, Labrador, Chile, Tiera del Fuego, the Bahamas, Idaho, Montana, etc. Why, without the little stipend I get from my government, I'd only be able to fish the Rapid for 6 or 7 weeks a year. Hey, I'm here now for yet another week. Weather is cool, water is cold, fish are jumpin', cabin is warm with a fire in the stove. BLTs for lunch today after I fished the morning landing several nice salmon and brookies. Took a well deserved nap and now I'm sitting on the porch overlooking the lake. It's been calm all day, but now a slight breeze has built up and put some whitecaps on the lake. Absolutely beautiful day for fishing or just hangin' around answering fools on the internet. Baked stuffed chicken breasts (stuffed with rice and Italian sausage) for dinner. There'll be birthday cake for Joanne for desert, and lots of champagne. Life is great. Be sure to not get fired, Wolfgang. I need your tax money so that I can have these little luxuries in life. Don't be a good Democrat like your hero Charlie Rangel. Pay those taxes. man. TIA Davey (Hey, did I tell ya about the new S6 I'm buying. Gonna keep the RS6 for track days at NH International. Next report from the Sechelles in February) d;o) |
ot health care
|
ot health care
Fred wrote:
On 19-Sep-2009, David LaCourse wrote: he Chesuncook is nowhere near the Rapid, Fred. You are thinking of the West Branch of the Penobscott. Floated it last fall and took some nice brook trout and landlocked salmon. You are right - Its been a long time I read where the inn was sold and there is trouble in Chesuncook Village http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/ne...03nemitz.shtml The brook trout were beautiful and VERY tasty and the salmon were great also and I am leaving for Fawn Lake tomw Fred there is indeed a fawn lake, and it holds sizeable brook trout. look at any of the park maps. forty is full of **** about the lake, and about my recommendation concerning it. check the roff archives for the full story of what was said and who said it. there are 5 other witnesses who can verify the size and depth of the lake. chas, a former regular here, and an excellent lake and big stream fisherman with no dog in the fight went along...he knows a lot about yellowstone fishing. he'll also tell you ken doesn't know what he's talking about with regard to the lake. warren findley went too...he lives in bozeman...he said the brook trout he caught in fawn lake was his biggest. ask him about fawn lake. also, ask craig matthews in west yellowstone about it. i went to fawn lake without knowing what i'd find. it was fun, we found a sizeable lake (15 acres or more) and we proved fortenberry didn't know what he was talking about as far as the lake. however, he is correct that a 6 mile walk up to the second meadow of slough makes more sense if you have limited time in the park... if i recall, i offered to meet ken at yellowstone in august or september...his choice...suggested we rent horses so he wouldn't gripe about the hike...my wager was if i proved he was wrong, he would admit it and apologize on roff for calling me a liar or fabricator. on the other hand, if i was proven wrong, i would pay for his plane fare, lodging and the horses, and acknowledge it here. i think i even said something about a $1000 wager early on...but not sure. so far, he's not taken me up on the wager. he is correct that it's a long hike...about 12 miles roundtrip...about the same as to middle falls on snowbird creek here in nc or to second meadow of slough. it would be a good camping destination for an experienced camper and lake fisherman. there is an established designated backcountry campground nearby. a float tube would be a good idea too. the headwaters of the gardner are nearby, as is fawn creek...both have a lot of smaller brook trout and are fun to fish. the scenery is magnificent too. still, i much prefer stream fishing and other than proving ken a phony on an issue, i'd rather hike to streams than lakes. chas and willi are trying to convince me otherwise though. jeff |
ot health care
In article 2009092117253637709-dplacourse@aolcom, David LaCourse
wrote: We have the best medical care in the world. Well, you believe it. I can't imagine why. Newborn babies in the USA are more than twice as likely to die early as are babies born in Sweden; they're more likely to die than are babies born in Cuba. Is that something you're proud of? I used to meet people like this in the Communist Bloc, before the wall went down, who honestly believed that their country had the best system of government in the world. They didn't want to listen to facts, or arguments that disagreed with what they'd been told. They'd been told they had the best in the world, and they were going to believe anything they were told to believe. Lazarus |
ot health care
On 2009-09-21 20:45:42 -0400, Lazarus Cooke
said: In article 2009092117253637709-dplacourse@aolcom, David LaCourse wrote: We have the best medical care in the world. Well, you believe it. I can't imagine why. Newborn babies in the USA are more than twice as likely to die early as are babies born in Sweden; they're more likely to die than are babies born in Cuba. Is that something you're proud of? Tim, athere is a reason for that and it is NOT poor health care. People from all over the world rush to our teaching hospitals for cures. My cancer cure would not have succeeded in Canada according to men than I have coresponded with. One, the technology was not there, and Two, the wait would have had the cancer spread. The baby issue can be a whole bunch of things, including the freedom of the women to NOT have pre-natal care, or quite possibly her being an addict of drugs or alcohol. There is also the technology side to consider; there is a great effort today to save babies that would otherwise be still born or naturally aborted before term. There are many issues to consider. And, if you think my cancer could have been cured in Cuba I want what you a smokin'. I used to meet people like this in the Communist Bloc, before the wall went down, who honestly believed that their country had the best system of government in the world. They didn't want to listen to facts, or arguments that disagreed with what they'd been told. Yeah, I've met the same kinds too, most from Canada. They'd been told they had the best in the world, and they were going to believe anything they were told to believe. Yeah, something similar to the brain washed Habitats that I know and love. d;o) Russia did experiment and finally came up with the laser surgery that cured my legally blind daughter. She doesn't even were glasses today, and couldn't see without her coke-bottom glasses during her childhood and teen years. Thank you, Russia. We are all great, Lazarus. But I will stay with the U.S. technology. It's saved my life twice, thankyouverymuch. Lazarus Dave |
ot health care
David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-21 20:45:42 -0400, Lazarus Cooke said: In article 2009092117253637709-dplacourse@aolcom, David LaCourse wrote: We have the best medical care in the world. Well, you believe it. I can't imagine why. Newborn babies in the USA are more than twice as likely to die early as are babies born in Sweden; they're more likely to die than are babies born in Cuba. Is that something you're proud of? Tim, athere is a reason for that and it is NOT poor health care. People from all over the world rush to our teaching hospitals for cures. My cancer cure would not have succeeded in Canada according to men than I have coresponded with. One, the technology was not there, and Two, the wait would have had the cancer spread. The baby issue can be a whole bunch of things, including the freedom of the women to NOT have pre-natal care, or quite possibly her being an addict of drugs or alcohol. There is also the technology side to consider; there is a great effort today to save babies that would otherwise be still born or naturally aborted before term. There are many issues to consider. And, if you think my cancer could have been cured in Cuba I want what you a smokin'. I used to meet people like this in the Communist Bloc, before the wall went down, who honestly believed that their country had the best system of government in the world. They didn't want to listen to facts, or arguments that disagreed with what they'd been told. Yeah, I've met the same kinds too, most from Canada. They'd been told they had the best in the world, and they were going to believe anything they were told to believe. Yeah, something similar to the brain washed Habitats that I know and love. d;o) Russia did experiment and finally came up with the laser surgery that cured my legally blind daughter. She doesn't even were glasses today, and couldn't see without her coke-bottom glasses during her childhood and teen years. Thank you, Russia. We are all great, Lazarus. But I will stay with the U.S. technology. It's saved my life twice, thankyouverymuch. Lazarus Dave Dave....Your reply should have been addressed to Lazarus, not me. Tim |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter