Fishing - ot health care

FishingBanter (http://www.fishingbanter.com/index.php)

- Fly Fishing (http://www.fishingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - ot health care (http://www.fishingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=34666)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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? :)