OT - when politics gets personal

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:36:24 -0800 (PST), Larry L
wrote:

On Feb 23, 5:06*pm, wrote:


I gotta tell you straight out - on that alone, something sounds, with the little
info thus far, well, fishy (OBROFF?). *



I don't know what OBROFF means

It's left over from the "old days" of USENET - basically, an "on-topic" comment
in an "off-topic" post thread - "OBligatory ROFF" - "fishy." IAC, I wasn't
calling you "fishy," only the alleged situation in which someone needed 16K _in
advance_ for life-saving treatment.

but I did send them some money and it
wouldn't surprise me if they don't recognize my name when they get
it .... I found out about the situation online on another fishing
board since other, closer, friends have organized a fund raising
effort to help


As for other stuff, and the big picture and politics. I've already
made the 16K boat and god given right comment that I don't think was
right on my part and one to another person I think was in poor taste
too.

Well, I've got pretty thick hide - I'm not now nor was I then even mildly
offended - I just didn't see what it had to do with this, so I asked. And FWIW,
I'm not the sort to get too worked up over comments made around here of any
level.

I'm going to bow out of the thread, because I don't want to find
myself making personal comments ala the norm here and doubt my self
control at the moment.

Take that anyway you like ... believing others, and in others, doesn't
seem too common here

I'll take it you wrote it - simple and direct. All I'd ask is that you return
the favor, and not attempt to "read between the lines" to the point of twisting
in your own mind what I write or ask. The questions I asked were so that I'd
have more information, and information I thought relevant to the discussion -
there was and is no "hidden agenda" - you posted something, it caught my eye, I
responded. Pretty simple, really.

TC,
R

ps...john, any chance you'll get over to the madison in july? *been way
too long since we've chased the trout.)

unknown. As with many areas the economy in our little corner of the
world has taken a big whack. The paper mill shut down which was one of
the largest single private employers in the county, The outfall from
that (support contractors, suppliers, trucking, etc) has not really
been realized yet. The Plum Creek lumber mill in Bonner closed up last
year, Macy's is closing up shop next month, one hospital went through
a round of lay offs, the old Brady's Sportsmans Surplus closed its
doors. Meanwhile the recovery $ here are being spent on such high
minded projects as installing new windows in an old fish hatchery, re-
shingling some old ranger cabins, and a few misc. road resurfacing
projects.

Private money funded projects are almost non-existent and the banks
are locked up tighter than a drum. Talking to other contractors,
bankers, etc., the consensus is that we will be flat for at least 2
more years. Consequently, contractors are bidding things at absurd
rates and bidding over much larger geographical areas than they would
normally. A couple weeks back we lost a state funded project to a
Utah based contractor no one here has even heard of before. One friend
of mine told me they have been seeing bid prices at about 1995 levels,
but neither material nor labor costs are going down, so there will be
a lot of failures and/or wild backcharges.

Talking to the fly shop the other day, our snowpack in western mt is
about 55% of normal. George said that the snow has been at what he
considers drought levels for 8 of the last 11 years.

OTOH I may have lots of spare time this summer.

john

Um, OK - refresh my memory - which party is which...?

TC,
R



....and there's the rub!

John

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:30:59 -0500, jeff wrote:

jh wrote:

Profit
allows the hospital to build the new cardiac wing, or add the new MRI
center, or ----.

not always john...the hospital/med school here just built a huge cardiac
center...in the hope for profit i'm sure, in the hope of keeping a
particular world famous doc happy i know, and in the hope of doing some
good for those who can afford or otherwise access the offered treatment.
it's a loss-leader so far, from what i hear. it's grand architecture
and offers hope. they charge a lot for their work...but i think the tax
dollars really made it happen, and will probably support it for a long
time. the cardiac surgeon is very pleased though...he's making a "profit".


imo, health care ought to be a civil right in a civilized society...

And maybe - now I know this sounds pretty far out there, but bear with me -
equal access to the courts and reasonable representation once there ought to be
a civil right. Therefore, I'd propose that no one with a bar card be allowed to
charge more than the Federal minimum wage on any matter before any court until
April 16th of the current year PROVIDED that they have demonstrated their legal
qualifications by having prevailed for their client 60.1% of the time. And
until that rate of success is reached, they are bound by that wage. At the end
of the calendar year, the meter resets and any bar member not reaching 60.1% two
years in a row shall be deemed to be unsuited to the practice of law and
assigned to the gul...er, worker re-education...er, vocational reassignment
cen...oh, **** it, the doggeddamned prison camp located in the cosmopolitan
locale of Mosquito Haven, Florida until their "liquefied precipitation removal
system installation technician" training can be completed. If they cannot
successfully complete that, they should be turned over to Larry for, um,
close-order knot familiarization...or is what we have here a failure to
communicate...comrade...?

we
have to get away from the idea that profit should drive or even be a
part of a reasonable and available health care system. ...

And howsabout the legal system...? From what I hear tell, there's already rules
and codes and **** covering THAT...

and, yeah, i
know the slippery slope to socialism crap. but, wtf is a capitalist
government for if not to assure and provide for the health and welfare
of its citizens?

jeff (somewhere over the rainbow)

Judy Garland waits for you...?

TC,
R

On Feb 23, 5:05*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:28:51 -0800 (PST), Larry L
wrote:





I just now heard that a friend in Idaho has been diagnosed with very
serious condition.

He and his wife have tried for years to find decent, affordable health
care insurance but to no avail, because of 'pre-existing" conditions.

They run a small business in the finest tradition of such things, work
incredibly long hours and don't make much doing so. * * They are
assets to their community in multiple ways, beyond their small store,
they are damn fine people. * They, imho, are exactly the type of
people this country should be looking out for best, not screwing
around for political reasons.

May I say, from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of them and the
millions with similar stories,
**** Republicans in the US Senate

Quick question for ya - all politics aside, who would you suggest has the
duty/responsibility to pay for your friend's medical care? *Before you answer
that question, let me ask another - are you prepared, right here, right now, to
state that you are willing to pay a proportional share of not only his, but
these other "millions with similar stories," regardless of what that mean for
your and your family's own financial situation? *And, if you know, why didn't
they get insurance before they had "pre-existing conditions?"

TC,
R

You got a fire department anywhere near where you live?

****wit.

g.

On Feb 23, 6:09*pm, jh wrote:
Knowing full well that this is pointless, but in all seriousness
anyway, what in the world makes you or anyone else think coverage
would cost any less then the aforementioned $1200/mo. under this
"fixed" health plan? *Nothing in the plan seems to actually address
cost of coverage - it does seem to play musical chairs with who is
going to actually pay for it. Since they tout the plan as a zero cost
to the gvmt - that means that all costs included the additional cost
of the gvmt agencies overseeing this thing are going to have to be
covered by business (for their employees) or by the individual (suzy
homemaker maybe has to pay her own way I suppose)- ultimately it is
the private individual that gets the bill.

It will, of course, have to be paid for - dr's, hospitals,
chiropractors, lawyers, ins. co's, etc. all are going to get paid, or
they aren't going to exist. *In this case, the way the new deal reads,
I think your friends would have a bigger problem than they have now -
because as a business they would have had to provide coverage for
themselves - or else the bill will just be added to their tax bill.
If it is a crippling cost to the business- then go get a real job.

As near as I can tell the latest plan is about a 1000 pages that says,
"you will have health coverage- because it is the law." *So either
your employeer is going to have to adjust his cost of doing business
to accomodate the 1200 ish dollars per family/couple/whatever the hell
the family unit is. *Or medicare or something suspiciously like
medicare is going to cough up the care costs - and whack the taxpayer
accordingly.

Where is the money going to come from for city, county, state
employees? *oh, thats right- the same place the money comes from to
cover the private business employees.

Of course, no one will mind the added cost to all goods and serivces
across the board to fund coverage for 100% of the population - even
those unemployed or unemployable.

What I find interesting is that as a small employeer of union
ironworkers and carpenters, we are struggling to get work. *Primarily
the issue is labor cost. *A huge portion of our labor cost is the cost
of the union health and retirement funds. *Nobody wants to pay the
rates we have to charge to keep my employees covered. *As an example,
when was the last time you insisted that the builder who built your
home, deck, patio, installed your new range, installed your new
carpet, etc prove that he had health coverage for his employees? *I'd
guess you took the low bid and ran with it.

I'm all for fixing health care - but lets fix costs. *If the costs can
be contained - people will get coverage.

jh

Great arguments.

Um.....they got a single payer police department anywhere near where
you live?

g.

On Feb 23, 7:32*pm, jh wrote:


no, of course profit is not the only important aspect of business. *I
think it is pretty rare that you find a co. whos mission statement
consists of "profit"

Name one that doesn't.

I also think that profit is not the evil it is made out to be. *Profit
allows the hospital to build the new cardiac wing, or add the new MRI
center, or ----.

No, that comes under the rubric of "costs."

In our case, profit may allow for the addition of new forklifts,
welders, safety gear, etc. *strictly managing to pull in overhead w/o
profit pretty much means status quo. *keep what you have going, pay
the rent, keep the lights turned on.

No, those are all "costs."

I have no prob. with insurance co.s making a profit, nor the Dr. that
yanks a messed up gall bladder.

Really? Well, surprise us!

I do wish the ins. co's were more
efficient with their (my) money.

In fact, they are preternaturally efficient with it. The trouble is
that you misunderstand their intent.

From what I've learned, they have a
pretty substantial overhead cost

Perhaps you're not done learning. Unfortunately, you probably are.

- I think they need a bit more
competition so they can run a little leaner.

Yeah, what we really need is another thirty thousand or so insurance
companies......that'll certainly make things more efficient and cost
effective.

At the same time, I
think they do their level best to get out of paying claims while
getting slaughtered by legislation that sticks them with costs that
were never intended to be covered.


Well, you're certainly right about the first part of that.....and dead
wrong about the latter parts.

I seriously dislike ins. co's -

I don't think I believe that.

but I would absolutely not want to do what they do.

Oh, I don't know.....rape can be fun.

I think that coverage for all is a great idea- but the costs have to
be addressed realistically.

Ah! Realism! Yeah, everybody here has a real firm grasp on that.

I have no idea how many unisured people
there are in the US, but I am sure how ever many there are, they all
have the same, statistically speaking, health costs I have.

Rally? Why?

So if you
dump them into the system - and they can't afford the costs of
coverage - my costs go up. *If my costs go up, my cost of doing
business goes up, if my costs of business go up, either I gotta go
find free money, or I have to increase my bill to john Q customer.

So, exactly how much has your cost for police protection gone up in
the last couple of decades as a result of equal coverage for those who
cannot or will not pay their fair share?

actually a fairly simple concept.

Yeah, there's a lot of that simple concept stuff going around.

I still think the answer is along the lines of catastrophic coverage -
say $10,000. *under that is 100% on you, over that is 100% on
insurance.

Good enough answer, but it invites the question of just what it is an
answer to.

Think of the amount of paper that gets eliminated (paper =
money, it means secretaries, reviewers, auditors, etc etc etc), *If
everyone had, and paid, for that policy there would be huge funds
available for those that needed catastrophic health care. *Say one
person in 20 needs that kind of coverage in a given year, the premiums
would be drasticaly reduced - and you could afford a health savings
account that could build up to 10k in a couple three years, so the
9000 gall bladder surgery is cash payable. *My premium runs $500/mo
for just me, cut it to 200 and let me stick 200-300 in an HSA, in 2 -
3 years assuming limited draws for little things, my one time 10 k
deal is paid for. *gotta work the numbers - but I think something like
that would work.

Good idea. Work those numbers. Work them hard. Maybe it'll result
in a substantial reduction in gibberish.

g.

On Feb 23, 9:51*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:30:59 -0500, jeff wrote:
jh wrote:

Profit
allows the hospital to build the new cardiac wing, or add the new MRI
center, or ----.

not always john...the hospital/med school here just built a huge cardiac
center...in the hope for profit i'm sure, in the hope of keeping a
particular world famous doc happy i know, and in the hope of doing some
good for those who can afford or otherwise access the offered treatment.
*it's a loss-leader so far, from what i hear. it's grand architecture
and offers hope. they charge a lot for their work...but i think the tax
dollars really made it happen, and will probably support it for a long
time. the cardiac surgeon is very pleased though...he's making a "profit".

imo, health care ought to be a civil right in a civilized society...

And maybe - now I know this sounds pretty far out there, but bear with me -
equal access to the courts and reasonable representation once there ought to be
a civil right. *Therefore, I'd propose that no one with a bar card be allowed to
charge more than the Federal minimum wage on any matter before any court until
April 16th of the current year PROVIDED that they have demonstrated their legal
qualifications by having prevailed for their client 60.1% of the time. *And
until that rate of success is reached, they are bound by that wage. *At the end
of the calendar year, the meter resets and any bar member not reaching 60..1% two
years in a row shall be deemed to be unsuited to the practice of law and
assigned to the gul...er, worker re-education...er, vocational reassignment
cen...oh, **** it, the doggeddamned prison camp located in the cosmopolitan
locale of Mosquito Haven, Florida until their "liquefied precipitation removal
system installation technician" training can be completed. *If they cannot
successfully complete that, they should be turned over to Larry for, um,
close-order knot familiarization...or is what we have here a failure to
communicate...comrade...?

we
have to get away from the idea that profit should drive or even be a
part of a reasonable and available health care system. ...

And howsabout the legal system...? *From what I hear tell, there's already rules
and codes and **** covering THAT...

and, yeah, i
know the slippery slope to socialism crap. but, wtf is a capitalist
government for if not to assure and provide for the health and welfare
of its citizens?

jeff (somewhere over the rainbow)

Judy Garland waits for you...?

TC,
R

Moron.

g.

On Feb 23, 7:48*pm, MajorOz wrote:
On Feb 23, 6:15*pm, DaveS wrote:





On Feb 23, 3:05*pm, wrote:

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:28:51 -0800 (PST), Larry L
wrote:

I just now heard that a friend in Idaho has been diagnosed with very
serious condition.

He and his wife have tried for years to find decent, affordable health
care insurance but to no avail, because of 'pre-existing" conditions..

They run a small business in the finest tradition of such things, work
incredibly long hours and don't make much doing so. * * They are
assets to their community in multiple ways, beyond their small store,
they are damn fine people. * They, imho, are exactly the type of
people this country should be looking out for best, not screwing
around for political reasons.

May I say, from the bottom of my heart, on behalf of them and the
millions with similar stories,
**** Republicans in the US Senate

Quick question for ya - all politics aside, who would you suggest has the
duty/responsibility to pay for your friend's medical care? *Before you answer
that question, let me ask another - are you prepared, right here, right now, to
state that you are willing to pay a proportional share of not only his, but
these other "millions with similar stories," regardless of what that mean for
your and your family's own financial situation? *And, if you know, why didn't
they get insurance before they had "pre-existing conditions?"

TC,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1. Prepared to pay . . . . Who do you think pays for it now? Duh. Fact
is we pay more than double for half the care.

2. Buy it before they had pre-existing conditions . . . *Because they
thought it would never happen to them, like most people do, and like
most of the silly rightwinglings who mutter the cheap extended
adolescent mantras of the personality disorder known as
"conservatism."

I never thought I would hit the other car, but I bought liability
insurance.
Never thought I would back into the tree, but I bought collision
coverage.

Should I have waited until after the fact and then demanded a policy
that should pay, regardless or pre-existant sheet metal crunches?

duh !

oz-

Never thought your house would catch fire, but you bought a fire
department. Never thought you would get mugged, but you bought a
police department. Never thought you would get cholera, but you
bought a water treatment facility. Never thought you would get
dysentery, but you bought a waste water treatment plant. Never
thought you would get invaded, but you bought an army.....and a
navy.....and an air force.....and a marine corps.....and a coast
guard. Never thought your neighbors would get unruly, but you bought
a government.

duh!

Moron.

g.

On 2010-02-23 17:54:19 -0500, Larry L said:

On Feb 23, 2:34*pm, "Bill McKee" wrote:

*Did cost me $1200 a
month. *Is that not reasonable?

I doubt seriously they could afford that.

As for blaming
... nothing, this last year could probably have changed my friends
situation, not enough time

.... but the ****ing Repugnants with their filibuster mania forced
what really could have been well discussed, compromised, health care
reform to fail ( admittedly, partly because a few imbecile Democrats
had to be "accommodated") because not even a few reasonable Repugs
were to be found in the hall )

... shouting "no" is NOT leading, it's lying about being a leader

Larry, with all due respect, blaming it on the Republicans is not fair.
The Democrats have major majorities in both Houses and occupy the WH.
They could have passed *anything* that looked good. What they came up
with was a pitiful mess that the majority of Americans do not want.
They had to bribe pols to get the bills through, and even now, the
Senate version will NOT pass in the house because of its contents. The
Republicans did not pen these bills; Democrats did and both Pelosi and
Reid know the bill is dead and going nowhere. As far as Republican
actions on these bills...... I remember seeing Obama on the news
meeting *exclusively* with the Dems of both Houses. The Republicans
were not invited.

Even if the Republicans voted 100% for the bills in the House and the
Senate, it would take *years* to impliment. Your friend is not dying
because of anything Congress or the Senate did or did not do. Perhaps
he should have planned better, ensured that he and his would always be
covered by some kind of insurance. I did, and I am called an imbecile,
idiot, moron, uneducated, etc by the insane and nasty denizens in this
rat hole. I don't mean to sound cruel, but there is no free lunch; if
you don't watch out for yourself, no one else will. Plan, save, and do
it yourself. Don't rely on the politicians, because they sure as hell
don't love you and yours, or me and mine. Do you honestly think Nancy
and Harry care about your friend? They don't. They are the ruling
class; you, your friend, me - we aren't part of their world. If every
pol voted what his/her constituents wanted, their would be no health
care bill as it now exists, but there *could* have been a bill that
everyone agreed upon if only the process was different. I have but a
few years to live and I know I will not see universal health care in my
life time. My children doubt they will see it, or even see Social
Security because we are so very deep in debt. They know that DC
doesn't care **** about them, Republicans or Democrats.

I pray your friend has an easy time of it in the short time he has left.

Dave