a sense of perspective

The cost of one day of the war in Iraq could pay for one year of health
insurance for 400,000 uninsured children.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...
The cost of one day of the war in Iraq could pay for one year of health
insurance for 400,000 uninsured children.


it's a disgrace, and a nightmare.

but where are the children warriors, who drove lbj out of office? they,
and their parents, ourselves, are cowering in the fog of internet message
boards.

this nation is on its way down.

yfitons
wayno

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:51:23 GMT, "Wayne Harrison"
wrote:


"rw" wrote in message
link.net...
The cost of one day of the war in Iraq could pay for one year of health
insurance for 400,000 uninsured children.


it's a disgrace, and a nightmare.

Now think about that statement a second. It isn't, "the cost could pay
to provide necessary, even life-saving treatment to a lot more than
400,000 children," it's framed in terms of paying for _insurance_ for
400,000 children. Sick or injured children who have no insurance
coverage don't need insurance, they need medical care, and healthy
children obviously don't need care - if you insure 400,000, some will go
without, but if treat those who actually need, more could be
accomplished.

but where are the children warriors, who drove lbj out of office?

Mostly, they're worried about other things - building up their IRAs,
buying the latest and greatest, be it a home, car, insuring rather than
treating, or (obROFF), new co-o-o-o-l FFing equipment. And since there
is no draft and they are well above the age to go IAC, there's nothing
to spur them to self-interest. And, of course, being a "hippie" isn't
nearly as appealing as it once seemed.

they, and their parents, ourselves, are cowering in the fog of
internet message boards.

Oh, you meant those in their late-teens to mid-twenties now...OK, let's
take a poll (OH, GOODY! A POLL!!):

(All questions based on 16-20 year olds)
1. What percent would you guess have cell phones?
2. What percent would you guess have tastes well beyond their means?
3. What percent would you guess have parents whose tastes are well
beyond their means?
4. What percent would you guess are taught some social responsibility?
5. What percent would you guess think looking and being able to act
like insert idiotic celeb here is one of the 3 top priorities of their
lives?
6. What percent would you guess would be satisfied with having hair
like John, Paul, George, and/or Ringo as opposed to having a $400,000
car, lots of gaudy "bling," and being a "gangsta mofo" just like Enema M
or 50 Nocents (and that's just the girls...)?
7. And for those with kids from 12 years old and up, what would you
guess that an objective observer might answer if the above questions
were limited to your kids and their friends?

this nation is on its way down.

IMO, being the eternal optimist, probably not, but when even those who
think of themselves as social liberals think of problems like sick kids
in terms of not having insurance, it's just another problem...

your friend, currently in the magnolia stat...er, iowa,
R

wrote:
"Wayne Harrison" wrote:
"rw" wrote:
The cost of one day of the war in Iraq could pay for one year of health
insurance for 400,000 uninsured children.

it's a disgrace, and a nightmare.


Now think about that statement a second. It isn't, "the cost could pay
to provide necessary, even life-saving treatment to a lot more than
400,000 children," it's framed in terms of paying for _insurance_ for
400,000 children. Sick or injured children who have no insurance
coverage don't need insurance, they need medical care, and healthy
children obviously don't need care - if you insure 400,000, some will go
without, but if treat those who actually need, more could be
accomplished.

I'm surprised to hear you coming out in favor of socialized
medicine. I think it's a ****ing disgrace that we don't have
it in this country already.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:59:42 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
"Wayne Harrison" wrote:
"rw" wrote:
The cost of one day of the war in Iraq could pay for one year of health
insurance for 400,000 uninsured children.

it's a disgrace, and a nightmare.


Now think about that statement a second. It isn't, "the cost could pay
to provide necessary, even life-saving treatment to a lot more than
400,000 children," it's framed in terms of paying for _insurance_ for
400,000 children. Sick or injured children who have no insurance
coverage don't need insurance, they need medical care, and healthy
children obviously don't need care - if you insure 400,000, some will go
without, but if treat those who actually need, more could be
accomplished.

I'm surprised to hear you coming out in favor of socialized
medicine. I think it's a ****ing disgrace that we don't have
it in this country already.

And you've not heard me come out in favor of socialized medicine. It's
just a ****ed-up quasi insurance company run by bureaucrats,and as such,
it doesn't work, either. First and foremost, the _health care_ system
in this country is pretty good, with relatively few going without. In
fact, I'd guess (but don't know absolutely) that overall care would
probably decrease with socialized medicine.

OTOH, the payment scheme is screwed up beyond belief and that idea that
people need insurance rather than the underlying treatment that
insurance _might_ be called upon to provide is part of why it is so
screwed up. Figure in overall malpractice costs (or really, costs
resulting from the ridiculous awards - you want to punish a truly
negligent doctor? Yank his license and toss his ass in jail, but don't
give some individual 100 million USD...minus 40% and costs...), product
and premise liability costs, bureaucratic costs, advertising costs,
across-the-board profit, etc., and at the end of the day, there's going
to be a bill for all that extra slop in the trough.

TC,
R

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:24:18 -0600, wrote:


And you've not heard me come out in favor of socialized medicine. It's
just a ****ed-up quasi insurance company run by bureaucrats,and as such,
it doesn't work, either. First and foremost, the _health care_ system
in this country is pretty good, with relatively few going without. In
fact, I'd guess (but don't know absolutely) that overall care would
probably decrease with socialized medicine.


Total, unmitigated bull****. Wade through your health care industry
propaganda, find some independent sources and learn some facts.
So-called "socialized" health insurance schemes are vastly more
efficient than the U.S. mult-payor system. Some years back there was
a study of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan vs. U.S. private plans.
The Ontario government run, "socialized" OHIP plan consumed only 0.9%
of every preimum dollar (that's 9/10ths of one cent for the
mathematically challenged) to cover administrative costs while U.S.
private insurers had administrative costs that ran as high as 37% (37
cents of every premium dollar).

One of the greatest contrasts between a Canadian hospital and a U.S.
one can be found in the size of their respective A/R departments.
Tiny, tiny, tiny in a Canadian hospital and huge in a U.S. hospital.
Every dollar that goes into the A/R department or the marketing
department, is one less dollar available for treatment.

The Canadian system is full of problems, in large part because it has
to exist side-by-side with yours and it's under constant assualt by
the ****ing neo-cons who want it dismanetled so they can fatten their
wallets. Even so, it still manages to deliver consistently better
outcomes and world leading technologies at about half the cost. And
it doesn't leave a fifth of the population behind in the process. The
Canadian system costs less per capita to deliver total coverage to
the entire popultaion, including recent immigrants, than the the U.S.
Medicare system does to cover just a small portion of the U.S.
population.

Canadian doctors have flocked south in the past to enjoy the profits
of the U.S. system. These days there's an equal flow north of ex-pat
doctors returning to Canada because of the greater medical freedom in
Canada -- POP, there goes another "socialized" medicine myth. There's
more medical freedom to practice heer than there is in the HMO ridden
system down south. I remember Wayne Knight getting all over my ass
about this and then later in the thread he wrote some of the most
convoluted crap I've ever read trying to describe when and when not an
uninsured person could recieve ER treatment in the U.S. The doctor
needed a lawyer standing at his shoulder offering advice as to which
cut would be covered and which cut wouldn't. You think this is
****ing better?

The final icing on the cake in these discussion always comes along
when some yahoo says, "I don't see any Americans running to other
countries to get medical care there." That's why Ontario had to spend
millions to introduce photo ID and proof of residence for it's health
care cards because so many poor Americans were stealing/forging the
old OHIP cards to get free coverage here. I never had to show my OHIP
card before when I visited the doctor but I do now. The fraud level
was that bad.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
I'm surprised to hear you coming out in favor of socialized
medicine. I think it's a ****ing disgrace that we don't have
it in this country already.

Considering the influence and power wielded by the pharmaceutical
companies, HMO's, and a large percentage of AMA members, we are just as
likely to see socialized oil production.

rw wrote:

The cost of one day of the war in Iraq could pay for one year of health
insurance for 400,000 uninsured children.


stunning, isn't it. wonder what we could do in the education field with
those funds? my state has a ridiculously hig drop out rate in high
school. have you seen the latest cuts proposed in congress to help with
the impossible budget crisis created by shrub and his minions?
appalling...

i think i can see the writing on the wall..."abandon all hope ye who
enter here".

Jeff Miller wrote:
rw wrote:

The cost of one day of the war in Iraq could pay for one year of
health insurance for 400,000 uninsured children.


stunning, isn't it. wonder what we could do in the education field with
those funds? my state has a ridiculously hig drop out rate in high
school. have you seen the latest cuts proposed in congress to help with
the impossible budget crisis created by shrub and his minions? appalling...

i think i can see the writing on the wall..."abandon all hope ye who
enter here".

Do you remember that they told us the war would pay for itself with oil
revenues?

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:18:44 -0500, Jeff Miller
wrote:

rw wrote:

The cost of one day of the war in Iraq could pay for one year of health
insurance for 400,000 uninsured children.


stunning, isn't it. wonder what we could do in the education field with
those funds? my state has a ridiculously hig drop out rate in high
school. have you seen the latest cuts proposed in congress to help with
the impossible budget crisis created by shrub and his minions?
appalling...

Hmmm...from the NC Department of Public Instruction:

During Clinton's last term:

"The dropout rate for students in grades seven through 12 was 4.6
percent in 1998-99. A total of 25,578 students dropped out last year in
these grades. In the previous reporting year, the rate was 3.61 percent
representing 19,541 students dropping out in 1997-98."

And the latest under Bush:

"North Carolina’s annual high school dropout rate was released for the
2003-04 school year, showing that 3.29 percent of students in grades
7-12 "

i think i can see the writing on the wall..."abandon all hope ye who
enter here".

Would that be on the wall of UNC or NC State? Oh, OK, for the
terminally-serious, G

Seriously, I'm sure you know those numbers are, um, "generous," but how
is spending more money going to help? It isn't going to be a matter of
throwing more money into a bottomless pit, it's going to be a matter of
spending whatever money in more meaningful way. And the biggest part
of the problem isn't educating the kids, it's educating the parents.

TC,
R