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

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.

"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

On Dec 19, 10:32*am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"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.

Everyone also wishes for a long healthy life, leavened with moderate
to great wealth, notable physical beauty and vigor, numerous
trustworthy and steadfast friends, and eternal true love. But I don't
think I've ever met anyone who thought that he or she was going to
accomplish many of those things that he or wasn't already blessed with
(except perhaps the last.....just about everybody thinks their going
to get that, it appears.....and they are almost universally
disappointed in that), and I know I've almost never heard anyone
express the belief that anyone should provide them with all these
fundamental human rights. And I have absolutely never heard anyone
say that he or she needed or deserved "state of the art" health care
or that it is a fundamental human right or one guaranteed by the
constitution of the United States.


What people want is decent and affordable health care, with affordable
to be understood in the same sense that it is when speaking of
groceries, fuel, transportation, toiletries, car wax and all the other
ordinary day to day (which is how people actually live) expenses
incurred in an ordinary life.

Or, viewed another way, no one wishes to
give up a single possible surgical, diagnostic or pharmaceutical option,

Bull**** and arrant nonsense. The vast majority are stupefied and
petrified by the vast array of incomprehensible options with which
they are constantly confronted in health care. And this is no
accident. The system was deliberately designed that way and is
continually and deliberately "improved" to make it ever more so. It
has long been known that the easiest path to an eternity of bilking
the public is to keep them terrified, confused and bemused. This way
to the egress--

and
those same folks then puzzle at why heathcare costs go up.

Some of them, to be sure.....the ones who wonder how the garage
managed to jump into the middle of the driveway while they were
backing out. Most, though, are not as stupid as you think they are.
They know why costs keep going 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..

I don't see anything at all silly about self-respect or attitude as
such. To be sure, one's rationalization for assuming he or she
deserves the former can be downright silly.....or perverse, obscene,
itiotic, or what have you. And I guess that a particular attitude may
be silly depending on various definitions, criteria, and perceptions,
but this does not materially affect attitudes in general.

Sorry, no such radical change has happened.

Well, you'd know.....right? I mean, it's like when you have a major
stroke or get knocked into a coma or something......you suddenly sit
up and say, "Wow, I just had a major stroke or got knocked into a coma
or something. Hey, did any of you notice?".....right?

Too bad that you see it otherwise,

Too bad? Why?

but like most folks making guesses about others outlooks,
intellects or intentions, you are far off reality.

O.k., outlooks, intellects and intentions. Got it. What about fears
and expectations? What about puzzlement? What about heebie-jeebies?
What about interest in options?

Finally, where I am on the issue of healthcare is pretty clear(you mused as
to where I stood....):

May be clear to you. Then again, maybe you just think so. On the
other hand, like most folks making guesses about what is clear to
others, you may be far off reality.

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 chocolate......LOTS of good chocolate. But I suspect there will
be some disagreement about that.

And, like Medicare, there should be reasonable limitations that can be
overcome with supplemental coverage to those who desire that sort of thing.

O.k., that sounds easy enough. Consider it done.

The second part of the equation is a reworking of how we educate and later
compensate physicians and other critical health personnel.

Heck, that sounds even easier.

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.

Actually, we can expect ANYTHING. Meanwhile, I've known many people
who were (and are) still paying off student loans ten and fifteen
years after graduating from college. Not ONE of them is a doctor or
other health care professional.

g.
so, is anyone interested in how to to bring about substantial reform
in health care in america......and why it isn't going to happen in the
forseeable future? anyone? go ahead.......ask.

My gawd! I find myself agreeing with Wolfgang.

I'll sit here near the warm fire with my beautiful wife and wait for
the guys in the white coats. Hopefully they can make it through the
snow. Wonder what they will feed me in the rubber room...............

"Giles" wrote in message
...
so, is anyone interested in how to to bring about substantial reform
in health care in america......and why it isn't going to happen in the
forseeable future? anyone? go ahead.......ask.

ok, fire away. Hell, I just gave my point of view, and specified it as such.
I'd love to hear yours.....
Tom

On Dec 19, 7:23*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Giles" wrote in message

...
so, is anyone interested in how to to bring about substantial reform
in health care in america......and why it isn't going to happen in the
forseeable future? *anyone? *go ahead.......ask. * * *

ok, fire away. Hell, I just gave my point of view, and specified it as such.
I'd love to hear yours.....
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom

First you have to gut three or four of the largest, most deeply
entrenched, wealthiest (and therefore most powerful) and highly
connected commercial institutions in the country; insurance, health
care, pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment/supplies. Not
"reform"......gut. After that, the next step doesn't matter much
because that isn't going to happen......who would do it?

It's that simple. And that isn't a "point of view."

g.

yea, i think we used to call it "being a commie"...








On Dec 19, 7:17*pm, Giles wrote:
On Dec 19, 7:23*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:

"Giles" wrote in message

....
so, is anyone interested in how to to bring about substantial reform
in health care in america......and why it isn't going to happen in the
forseeable future? *anyone? *go ahead.......ask. * * *

ok, fire away. Hell, I just gave my point of view, and specified it as such.
I'd love to hear yours.....
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom

First you have to gut three or four of the largest, most deeply
entrenched, wealthiest (and therefore most powerful) and highly
connected commercial institutions in the country; insurance, health
care, pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment/supplies. *Not
"reform"......gut. *After that, the next step doesn't matter much
because that isn't going to happen......who would do it?

It's that simple. *And that isn't a "point of view."

g.

"Giles" wrote in message
...
First you have to gut three or four of the largest, most deeply
entrenched, wealthiest (and therefore most powerful) and highly
connected commercial institutions in the country; insurance, health
care, pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment/supplies. Not
"reform"......gut. After that, the next step doesn't matter much
because that isn't going to happen......who would do it?


who indeed? Especially since no one would wish to live through the 'gutting'
of the health care, pharmaceutical or medical equipment industries. Therein
lies the issue I put out on these pages a few months ago: it has been a long
process getting us to the current f-ed up stage, and it cannot be quickly or
painlessly undone. It's not just about the 'connected' part, either. At
present, our healthcare delivery absolutely depends on those industries and
their ongoing output, you couldn't 'gut ' them without severely limiting
care for a significant amount of time, unless we were to 'gut' them
gradually. And that, as I tried to point out, requires an overwhelming
public perception that healthcare is a public service, not an industry.
Tom