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.