Rant ...semi on topic
 

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
But the most insulting disregard of the American people in this whole
health care debate was for the GOP to knowingly pretend that Obama's
attack on medicare fraud, particularly in Florida and Texas, was a
"cut in health care for the elderly."

wait a minute......as a Democrat(entire adult life, ward leader, etc), and
as a supporter of Obama, IMHO, they set themselves up for that. Why? Because
it was presented in an extremely poor fashion. To the VAST majority of the
public, all that was laid out was that they were going to 'reduce' Medicare
costs. Nothing about efficiency or fraud crackdowns, just 'reduce costs'. To
most elderly people(scientific sample: two parents and and Aunt, all in
their 90's, two of whom voted for Obama), this brought on a serious case of
the heebie-jeebies.
Like I said, until it can be sold(and damn, it shouldn't be that hard a
sell) to the majority of the voting public that Healthcare should be a
public service, not a for-profit industry, and until the American public can
learn to value different levels of care and show the willingness to manage
their own costs responsibly, we are never going to be able to reform an
out-of-control system that costs WAY too much, per capita.
Tom

Rant ...semi on topic
 

On Dec 18, 4:36*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"DaveS" wrote in message

...
But the most insulting disregard of the American people in this whole
health care debate was for the GOP to knowingly pretend that Obama's
attack on medicare fraud, particularly in Florida and Texas, was a
"cut in health care for the elderly."

wait a minute......as a Democrat(entire adult life, ward leader, etc), and
as a supporter of Obama, IMHO, they set themselves up for that.

"They" may or may not have set themselves up for "that" (whoever they
may be and whatever that may be) but what has your allegedly being a
more or less lifelong Democrat (whatever that may mean) got to do with
it (whatever "it" may be)?

Why?

Excellent question. I've used it myself from time to time.

Because
it was presented in an extremely poor fashion.

O.k., sure, but what isn't?

To the VAST majority of the
public, all that was laid out was that they were going to 'reduce' Medicare
costs. Nothing about efficiency or fraud crackdowns, just 'reduce costs'. To
most elderly people(scientific sample: two parents and and Aunt, all in
their 90's, two of whom voted for Obama), this brought on a serious case of
the heebie-jeebies.

Hm.....a proposed reduction in Medicare costs gave your elderly
relatives a serious case of the heebie-jeebies? Um......not to appear
insensitive or anything, but maybe it's time for them to take a nap
(metaphorically speaking) or something.

Like I said, until it can be sold(and damn, it shouldn't be that hard a
sell) to the majority of the voting public that Healthcare should be a
public service, not a for-profit industry, and until the American public can
learn to value different levels of care and show the willingness to manage
their own costs responsibly, we are never going to be able to reform an
out-of-control system that costs WAY too much, per capita.

Anything can be sold. Take, for example, the laughably meaningless
phrase, "manage their own costs responsibly." Reform should be easy
to......oops.....wait a minute.....what is that tapping, as of some
one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door?

Hang on. I'll get back to you.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Tom


g.

Rant ...semi on topic
 

"Giles" wrote in message
...
"They" may or may not have set themselves up for "that" (whoever they
may be and whatever that may be) but what has your allegedly being a
more or less lifelong Democrat (whatever that may mean) got to do with
it (whatever "it" may be)?

If you would just follow basic English, 'that' would refer to the use of
scare tactics, that the Dems could have easily avoided, with a better
explanation at the outset.....if, indeed, that was how they planned to
reduce Medicare costs. I tossed in the lifelong dem thing to make clear to
Dave(sometimes he jumps to conclusions) that I am not, by any means, a shill
for the GOP.

Excellent question. I've used it myself from time to time.

thanks. I'm sure we're all just tickled pink to know that.

Hm.....a proposed reduction in Medicare costs gave your elderly
relatives a serious case of the heebie-jeebies? Um......not to appear
insensitive or anything, but maybe it's time for them to take a nap
(metaphorically speaking) or something.

folks, at that end of the age spectrum(and also those considerably younger)
don't want to hear about 'reductions' to their healthcare plan. Hell, who
does, if the reductions aren't spelled out, and in this case they were not.
Is it so unreasonable to acknowledge that people get very uneasy about
changes to their medical care. As one gets older, and thus more likely to
need that care more often, such changes are downright frightening. Perhaps a
nap would do you good, Wolfie, as I've waded this far through your retort,
and it's been pretty weak....

Anything can be sold. Take, for example, the laughably meaningless
phrase, "manage their own costs responsibly." Reform should be easy
to......oops.....wait a minute.....what is that tapping, as of some
one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door?

perhaps to you, that phrase was meaningless. However, as one who has worked
in the field of healthcare for a few decades, one gets very aware that the
average American wants the absolute best of the best, state of the art
healthcare, and then expresses shock at costs going through the roof. We
cannot, as a society provide state of the art care to every person, and
afford it, without a massive taxation increase. We should, IMHO, be able to
provide every citizen basic routine health services and proven, effective
treatment of acute and chronic medical conditions for a reasonable cost to
the society. Is that clearer for you, Wolfie?

Hang on. I'll get back to you.

whee! I can hardly wait. No intelligent discourse could ever be expected
here without you, right?

Tom

Rant ...semi on topic
 

On Dec 18, 2:36*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"DaveS" wrote in message

...
But the most insulting disregard of the American people in this whole
health care debate was for the GOP to knowingly pretend that Obama's
attack on medicare fraud, particularly in Florida and Texas, was a
"cut in health care for the elderly."

wait a minute......as a Democrat(entire adult life, ward leader, etc), and
as a supporter of Obama, IMHO, they set themselves up for that. Why? Because
it was presented in an extremely poor fashion. To the VAST majority of the
public, all that was laid out was that they were going to 'reduce' Medicare
costs. Nothing about efficiency or fraud crackdowns, just 'reduce costs'. To
most elderly people(scientific sample: two parents and and Aunt, all in
their 90's, two of whom voted for Obama), this brought on a serious case of
the heebie-jeebies.

True but. . . you argue like when a thief blames the victim, because
they were vulnerable. OK thats a stretch but not much. Who knew just
how low the Post-defeated GOP was willing to go to score a one match
point. IMHO They apparently hate the American working people.

Like I said, until it can be sold(and damn, it shouldn't be that hard a
sell) to the majority of the voting public that Health care should be a
public service, not a for-profit industry, and until the American public can
learn to value different levels of care and show the willingness to manage
their own costs responsibly, we are never going to be able to reform an
out-of-control system that costs WAY too much, per capita.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Tom

Well that's one idea of the necessary precursors. I am some more of an
existentialist on the subject: we shall see. Politics/National policy
continue to surprise me, just as an appreciation of the planets
oneness is setting in. ;+")
Dave

Rant ...semi on topic
 

On Dec 18, 8:21 pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Giles" wrote in message

..."They " may or may not have set themselves up for "that" (whoever they

may be and whatever that may be) but what has your allegedly being a
more or less lifelong Democrat (whatever that may mean) got to do with

it (whatever "it" may be)?

If you would just follow basic English, 'that' would refer to the use of
scare tactics, that the Dems could have easily avoided, with a better
explanation at the outset.....if, indeed, that was how they planned to
reduce Medicare costs.

I'm actually pretty good at basic English. For example, if you had
said that "the Dems" (an interesting usage for a lifelong Democrat,
incidentally) were using scare tactics instead of relying on something
or other, as yet unnamed, that you think might have worked better, I'd
probably have understood you to mean that "the Dems" were, to their
own detriment, using scare tactics instead of something or other, as
yet unnamed, that you think might have worked better. Try it
sometime.....let's see what happens.

I tossed in the lifelong dem thing to make clear to
Dave(sometimes he jumps to conclusions) that I am not, by any means, a shill
for the GOP.

And stupid **** like this is supposed to accomplish......what,
exactly?

Excellent question. I've used it myself from time to time.

thanks. I'm sure we're all just tickled pink to know that.

Moron.

Hm.....a proposed reduction in Medicare costs gave your elderly

relatives a serious case of the heebie-jeebies? Um......not to appear
insensitive or anything, but maybe it's time for them to take a nap

(metaphorically speaking) or something.

folks, at that end of the age spectrum(and also those considerably younger)
don't want to hear about 'reductions' to their healthcare plan.

Ah....see.....there's the problem. When you said "just 'reduce
costs'" I took that to mean reduce costs, not reduce benefits. Silly
of me.......one of those basic English things, I guess.

Hell, who does, if the reductions aren't spelled out, and in this case they were not.

Do you have any idea at all of which side you are on in this issue?
Do you have any idea at all of what the issue is? Do you have any
idea at all of what the words you use mean?

Is it so unreasonable to acknowledge that people get very uneasy about
changes to their medical care.

You can acknowledge anything you please. Evidently this much, at
least, is clear to you. However, acknowledgement is not the same
thing as understanding.......one of those basic English things.
Meanwhile, I have no problem at all in uderstanding why people with
limited financial means might be upset about diminished medical care.
What I'm having trouble with is why and how your family has managed to
spread their panic over reduced costs to you.

As one gets older, and thus more likely to
need that care more often, such changes are downright frightening.

Yes, yes, we've already covered that. It's the fear of reduced costs
that remains unexplained.

Perhaps a
nap would do you good, Wolfie, as I've waded this far through your retort,
and it's been pretty weak....

Not worth the effort, to be sure. And yet, here you are.

Anything can be sold. Take, for example, the laughably meaningless

phrase, "manage their own costs responsibly." Reform should be easy
to......oops.....wait a minute.....what is that tapping, as of some

one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door?

perhaps to you, that phrase was meaningless. However, as one who has worked
in the field of healthcare for a few decades, one gets very aware that the
average American wants the absolute best of the best, state of the art
healthcare, and then expresses shock at costs going through the roof.

Yeah, you're a legend in the health care field......something I
wouldn't know anything about.

We
cannot, as a society provide state of the art care to every person, and
afford it, without a massive taxation increase.

Yep, we'd end up like the Canadians, eh?

We should, IMHO, be able to
provide every citizen basic routine health services and proven, effective
treatment of acute and chronic medical conditions for a reasonable cost to
the society.

Uh huh, but I have it from an unimpeachable source that we can't
approach that without fatal tax increases.

Is that clearer for you, Wolfie?

You remember a time when you had something resembling opinions that
you could call your own? You remember something vaguely resembling
self-respect?

Hang on. I'll get back to you.

whee! I can hardly wait. No intelligent discourse could ever be expected
here without you, right?

With or without me, I see precious little reason to expect intelligent
discourse from some quarters. You want to tell me where I've gone
wrong in this analysis?

g.

Rant ...semi on topic
 

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
Who knew just
how low the Post-defeated GOP was willing to go to score a one match
point.

this is politics. Finding the bottom of the barrel is at best a challenge.

IMHO They apparently hate the American working people.

and, generally they always have. What is disappointing is the realization
that neither party holds the American public in very high regard, based on
this debacle.

Tom

Rant ...semi on topic
 

"Giles" wrote in message
...
Try it
sometime.....let's see what happens.

I'll take that under consideration, but it seems that Dave understood me
perfectly, so I'm not exactly fired with great urgency because you failed to
grasp my meaning.

Ah....see.....there's the problem. When you said "just 'reduce
costs'" I took that to mean reduce costs, not reduce benefits. Silly
of me.......one of those basic English things, I guess.

it is. But, when you tell folks you are going to spend less on a
program('reduce costs'), they often make the leap to a reduction of benefits
being the most likely spot to reduce costs. Does that make sense to you?

Do you have any idea at all of which side you are on in this issue?
Do you have any idea at all of what the issue is? Do you have any
idea at all of what the words you use mean?

yup. Do you?
Yeah, you're a legend in the health care field......something I
wouldn't know anything about.

working in research gives you one perspective. Working at the provider end
of things gives another. That, I understand. It's just that I choose not to
belittle your perspective because it is different. What I belittle is the
small-minded way you handle the opinions of others.

We
cannot, as a society provide state of the art care to every person, and
afford it, without a massive taxation increase.

Yep, we'd end up like the Canadians, eh?

really?? Canada provides state of the art care for all citizens under the
public plan? As compared to what is available in the US, or even to those in
Canada willing to
pay extra? That isn't my understanding of reality, but I'd love to hear the
Canadian contingent weigh in.

Uh huh, but I have it from an unimpeachable source that we can't
approach that without fatal tax increases.

what source would that be?

You remember a time when you had something resembling opinions that
you could call your own? You remember something vaguely resembling
self-respect?

I haven't changed a bit. Check your mirror.

With or without me, I see precious little reason to expect intelligent
discourse from some quarters. You want to tell me where I've gone
wrong in this analysis?

well, if you leave it THAT vague, I couldn't argue....simply because it is
as vague a statement as it is vaucous. You see, when you make your mind up
before starting to read and/or listen to others, that is the outlook one
develops.
Sad to see you descend to that level. Like I said, I haven't changed my
outlooks, thought processes, or manner of presentation one bit. Look in the
mirror to find the shortcomings.......

Tom

Rant ...semi on topic
 

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
Who knew just
how low the Post-defeated GOP was willing to go to score a one match
point.

this is politics. Finding the bottom of the barrel is at best a challenge.

IMHO They apparently hate the American working people.

and, generally they always have. What is disappointing is the realization
that neither party holds the American public in very high regard, based on
this debacle.

Tom

That these so-called representatives (no matter their political stripe) of
our's could careless about us has only expanded to the latest debacle-their
disdain for the unwashed masses has been evident for decades, IMMHO!

Op

Rant ...semi on topic
 

On Dec 19, 6:16*am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Giles" wrote in message

...

Try it
sometime.....let's see what happens.

I'll take that under consideration, but it seems that Dave understood me
perfectly,

Well,if your understanding of what Dave understood is perfect......

so I'm not exactly fired with great urgency because you failed to
grasp my meaning.

I'm not certain that I failed to grasp your meaning. How about you
spell it out and we'll see if that's what I thought?

Ah....see.....there's the problem. *When you said "just 'reduce
costs'" *I took that to mean reduce costs, not reduce benefits. *Silly
of me.......one of those basic English things, I guess.

it is.

See, that's what I thought. This is going very well! :)

But, when you tell folks you are going to spend less on a
program('reduce costs'), they often make the leap to a reduction of benefits
being the most likely spot to reduce costs. Does that make sense to you?

Nuance, my dear. 'reduce costs' isn't quite the same thing as "just
'reduce costs.'"
It's a basic English thing.

Do you have any idea at all of which side you are on in this issue?
Do you have any idea at all of what the issue is? *Do you have any
idea at all of what the words you use mean?

yup. Do you?

Well, I can come up with a few ideas. The problem is in coming up with
reliable ways to test hypotheses.

Yeah, you're a legend in the health care field......something I
wouldn't know anything about.

working in research gives you one perspective. Working at the provider end
of things gives another.

And there are ways to arrive at yet others.

That, I understand. It's just that I choose not to
belittle your perspective because it is different. What I belittle is the
small-minded way you handle the opinions of others.

That last sentence is a gem worth preserving. You should have a
calligrapher write it out nicely on some good quality vellum and then
hang it on your wall.

We
cannot, as a society provide state of the art care to every person, and
afford it, without a massive taxation increase.

Yep, we'd end up like the Canadians, eh?

really?? Canada provides state of the art care for all citizens under the
public plan? As compared to what is available in the US, or even to those in
Canada willing to pay extra? That isn't my understanding of reality, but I'd love
to hear the Canadian contingent weigh in.

Nah, the Canadian's don't provide state of the art health care for all
their citizens under a public plan. They couldn't afford to do that
without a massive taxation increase. As a matter of fact, they
couldn't afford to do that even WITH a massive taxation increase. Nor
could we. In point of fact, providing state of the art health care to
all citizens of any country is sort of a nonsensical
idea.......wouldn't you say?

Uh huh, but I have it from an unimpeachable source that we can't
approach that without fatal tax increases.

what source would that be?

Someone you know.....but not very well.

You remember a time when you had something resembling opinions that
you could call your own? *You remember something vaguely resembling
self-respect?

I haven't changed a bit.

The one reliable constant in the universe, eh?

Check your mirror.

O.k., what am I looking for?

With or without me, I see precious little reason to expect intelligent
discourse from some quarters. *You want to tell me where I've gone
wrong in this analysis?

well, if you leave it THAT vague, I couldn't argue....simply because it is
as vague a statement as it is vaucous.

Vague and vacuous.....yeah, there's a lot of that going around, I
hear.

You see, when you make your mind up
before starting to read and/or listen to others, that is the outlook one
develops.

I bow to your experience.

Sad to see you descend to that level.

Ah, you'll get over it.

Like I said, I haven't changed my
outlooks, thought processes, or manner of presentation one bit.

Stultified, huh? Pity. Life is change. No change......

Look in the mirror to find the shortcomings.......


I see some wrinkles that didn't used to be there. :(

g.

Rant ...semi on topic
 

"Giles" wrote in message
...
In point of fact, providing state of the art health care to
all citizens of any country is sort of a nonsensical
idea.......wouldn't you say?

yes, I would agree. However, talk to folks, and you start to get the idea
that is what everyone wishes for. Or, viewed another way, no one wishes to
give up a single possible surgical, diagnostic or pharmaceutical option, and
those same folks then puzzle at why heathcare costs go up.
Oh, and sure, we all change, evolve, whatever with time and age. But, you
seem to imply that I've had some sort of sea-change in terms of attitude,
self-respect or whatever other silly terms you throw in, at various times.
Sorry, no such radical change has happened. Too bad that you see it
otherwise, but like most folks making guesses about others outlooks,
intellects or intentions, you are far off reality.

Finally, where I am on the issue of healthcare is pretty clear(you mused as
to where I stood....): What the nation should have is a single-payer system,
similar to the setup of Medicare, that covers all citizens from birth to
death.
And, like Medicare, there should be reasonable limitations that can be
overcome with supplemental coverage to those who desire that sort of thing.
The second part of the equation is a reworking of how we educate and later
compensate physicians and other critical health personnel.
We cannot put doctors in a half-million dollar debt hole by age 30,and then
NOT expect them to seek compensation down the road.
Tom