OT - when politics gets personal

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:58:25 -0500, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
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?

not going to answer for Larry,

Whew, good...I was beginning to think everyone on ROFF but me knew this
couple...

but the sensible thing for all Americans,
with any sense of a common social contract with one another, would be to
answer 'yes'. Why?

Yeah, that's what I'm asking - why?

Because the bit about 'regardless of what that means...."
is just a smokescreen. With single-payer national health insurance, the cost
per person would plummet.

What makes _you_ think that? And no, Medicare is not a single payer system.

It's a given.

Lemme guess - Louie's brother-in-law gave ya the what's what on it? Seriously,
though, why is it a given?

And, it ought to be a no-brainer,
except for the fact that the one party which has shown no brains, and less
compassion, seems determined to block it. And the other,seemingly, doesn't
have the collective balls to make the case and pass it.

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

TC,
R
Tom

On Feb 23, 4:09*pm, jh wrote:


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



I think we'd agree on more than disagree.

But, protecting "profits" in the health biz is at odds with
protecting people in the country. Other countries have shown
( varying methods and success ) that "reasonable" profits AND
reasonable costs are both possible.

From my view, a major political problem here is that Republicans
( both sides but far more obvious over there on the right ) are owned
by and work for drug companies, insurance companies, and Wall St {less
clearly related})

My guess is that you vote R because you think they will "defend" your
right to make as much money as you can and stash it away .... good old
American Dream. ( not that I argue against it in most cases )

My question, do YOU think health care and iron work construction fall
into the same category, i.e. free enterprise with only profit as a
worthwhile goal? Do you even really believe that "profit" is the only
important ( even the most important) product of your own biz? if so,
sorry

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:29:20 -0800 (PST), Larry L
wrote:

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

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

I sent him some money an hour ago ... he has to come up with 16K++ ...
in advance

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

... for the only treatment with any hope

Uh-oh...I'm not sure, but I've got a bad feeling about this...

My guess is you've got boats worth more than 16K and assume they are your god
given right ?

Well, yes, sorta - I don't know about "god-given" - but probably not because of
the reason you might think. I think it is my right to own them because I earned
the money to pay for them, to fuel and maintain and insure them, etc. And IAC,
why would the monetary value of anything I own matter in this?

I own more than 16K worth of fishing ****, I bet.

Or that you own?

This man will probably die for want of 16K

I cannot comment on this exact situation because I don't know any of the
details, but I do not believe that a hospital could legally allow a patient to
die because of money, and from a purely business standpoint, I don't believe
they would over 16K, simply because of the potential legal and "bad PR" costs
associated with doing so, even if they would otherwise be inclined to do so
(which I also don't believe they would be).

I'm willing to have my taxes raised to provide basic care for my
fellow citizens ( I'm not a tax hater. I know that I'll also have
to pay my part of things I don't agree with ... tough, it goes with
the citizenship)

I believe in a social contract, and at least partly because I can
imagine being on the need side of same, I don't bitch much about being
on the pay side.

Would I truly deprive my family to help yours, no.

Well, then, that's pretty much that - IOW, you're willing to pay, but only the
amount and under the terms YOU decide is the line between "depravation" and your
social duty. If this guy is dying, but my making your family eat cat food for a
couple of months or even years, it would save him, who suffers more?

But truly
deprived is NOT something the average tax hater even has a clue
about ... not getting a 4th flat screen is not deprived .... nobody
lobbying for insurance companies and drug companies and Wall St has a
clue what deprived means ....

Oh, no, let's not get on one of the good ol' ROFF "nobody" tracks...neither you
or I know what _everybody_ lobbying, etc. knows or has experienced.

but lots of Americans do.

And so...what?

I do NOT advocate providing everything for everybody, just a
reasonable minimum for everybody.

Tell you what - email Wayne Knight (unless he's lurking and pops up) and ask him
how many dead bodies, of those who died because they didn't have 16K upfront, he
must step over each day.

I do NOT think anybody 'deserves'
all the latest and greatest high tech care possible, if you want
"everything" pay for the extra from your own pocket. Personally, I'd
rather 'go" than have the government ( or my family) spend a million
to keep me alive another week, in a stupor.

I think any modern, rich, society ..... worthy of the name ......
should NOT have good people needlessly suffering because of bad people
lobbying to protect record profits. I DO think there should be
public hangings of Wall Street execs and lawyers ( just checking to
see if you're really reading ;-)

All of them or just the ones you want to see dangling? And if I didn't wish to
at least try to read your entire response, I'd not reply to it.

I have good insurance myself and don't think I, personally, would gain
from reform

I don't have a clue about the why in your last question ... these are
poor people, hard working ( I think they split a 14 hour day, 7 days a
week ) but still poor .... I've been poor and know that you don't
always buy with the future firmly in mind, regardless of how sensible
you are, .... if poor.

Well, it's possible that this guy had these conditions since birth (or from a
young(ish) age) and it's possible that they, like some but not all, simply
didn't bother to plan and are now suffering from that failure. I didn't know,
so I asked. I still don't know since you've not answered (if you know), and so,
I cannot and will not comment on that aspect of the situation.


Larry L ( who knows as much as he knows anything, that "there but for
fortune, go you and I" and nearly gags when people totally fail to
realize that their own good circumstances are largely, luck .... as
I've said before, a lack of imagination seems tied to the
'conservative' mindset )

I totally disagree with your latter premise. What womb one gets shot out of
might be "luck," but true success in life, at least how I define it, is most
certainly not "luck." I suppose, like most things, YMMV.

TC,
R

My question, do YOU think health care and iron work construction fall
into the same category, i.e. free enterprise with only profit as a
worthwhile goal? *Do you even really believe that "profit" is the only
important ( even the most important) product of your own biz? *if so,
sorry

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"

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 ----.

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.

I have no prob. with insurance co.s making a profit, nor the Dr. that
yanks a messed up gall bladder. I do wish the ins. co's were more
efficient with their (my) money. From what I've learned, they have a
pretty substantial overhead cost - I think they need a bit more
competition so they can run a little leaner. 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. I seriously dislike ins. co's -
but I would absolutely not want to do what they do.

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

actually a fairly simple concept.

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. 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.

jh

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 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.

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

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

....and, if 60 senators can't pass something, why do folks blame the
other 40...?

cheers

oz

On Feb 23, 5:48*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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You bought them because you had to buy them.

But here is another news flash: I just got this from another NG.

"The dangers of "death panels" were explained to Americans on Sarah
Palin's Facebook page. Oh, sweet Lord, she must not sleep at
night...her grandson could be the next victim of "socialized
medicine".

Recently released documents from the custody battle show clearly
Tripp
Palin Johnston has socialized health care through Indian Health
Services and the Alaska Native Medical Center.

Palin's family has federally funded health care afforded to
them...but
if you had it Barack Obama might kill you. Put this on the list of
Palin's Greatest Hypocritical Hits...volume 97."

Shannyn Moore
Just a girl from Homer
Posted: February 20, 2010 05:28 PM

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...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, 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)

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

Larry L wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:05 pm, wrote:

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

I sent him some money an hour ago ... he has to come up with 16K++ ...
in advance ... for the only treatment with any hope My guess is
you've got boats worth more than 16K and assume they are your god
given right ? I own more than 16K worth of fishing ****, I bet.
This man will probably die for want of 16K

I'm willing to have my taxes raised to provide basic care for my
fellow citizens ( I'm not a tax hater. I know that I'll also have
to pay my part of things I don't agree with ... tough, it goes with
the citizenship)

I believe in a social contract, and at least partly because I can
imagine being on the need side of same, I don't bitch much about being
on the pay side.

Would I truly deprive my family to help yours, no. But truly
deprived is NOT something the average tax hater even has a clue
about ... not getting a 4th flat screen is not deprived .... nobody
lobbying for insurance companies and drug companies and Wall St has a
clue what deprived means .... but lots of Americans do.

I do NOT advocate providing everything for everybody, just a
reasonable minimum for everybody. I do NOT think anybody 'deserves'
all the latest and greatest high tech care possible, if you want
"everything" pay for the extra from your own pocket. Personally, I'd
rather 'go" than have the government ( or my family) spend a million
to keep me alive another week, in a stupor.

I think any modern, rich, society ..... worthy of the name ......
should NOT have good people needlessly suffering because of bad people
lobbying to protect record profits. I DO think there should be
public hangings of Wall Street execs and lawyers ( just checking to
see if you're really reading ;-)

uh...you mean "wall street lawyers", right? g


I have good insurance myself and don't think I, personally, would gain
from reform

I don't have a clue about the why in your last question ... these are
poor people, hard working ( I think they split a 14 hour day, 7 days a
week ) but still poor .... I've been poor and know that you don't
always buy with the future firmly in mind, regardless of how sensible
you are, .... if poor.


Larry L ( who knows as much as he knows anything, that "there but for
fortune, go you and I" and nearly gags when people totally fail to
realize that their own good circumstances are largely, luck .... as
I've said before, a lack of imagination seems tied to the
'conservative' mindset )

thanks for saying it out loud. sadly, "we" has mutated into "us" and
"them"...

jeff