Rant ...semi on topic

On Dec 15, 8:58*pm, Giles wrote:
On Dec 15, 8:53*pm, David LaCourse wrote:





On 2009-12-15 21:15:14 -0500, Giles said:

On Dec 15, 7:39*pm, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-12-15 19:23:51 -0500, "Tom Littleton" s
aid:

"David LaCourse" wrote in message
news:2009121421485178840-dplacourse@aolcom...
The post office has been operating at a loss for, how long? *It's ju
st
like Medicare and Medicaid which are both running in the red.

since when does 'operating at a loss' equal 'doing a bad job'? All thre
e
examples given are tasked with responsibilities that no private corpora
tion
would touch.
Medicare and Medicaid run at a much lower administrative overhead than
private health insurers. The post office delivers stuff at a far lower
rate
than a private carrier would charge, if anyone could even be found will
ing
to deliver tons of bulk mail, not to mention letters and greeting cards
,
worldwide. You have no clue about what you discuss, sometimes, Louie.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
** * * * * * * * Tom

The only thing government does well is make war, and it has not done
that for many, many years. *You think health care is expensive. *Wait
until it is free, Tom. *I'm on my last days. *Don't have too much tim
e
left. *You and yours, as well as my children, are the ones I feel sorry
for. *If revising health care is so very important, and I think it is,
why the big rush? *Do it slowly, thoughtfully, carefully, and with a
majority of the PEOPLE in favor. *More than 60% of the adults in the
U.S. don't want this health care bill. *Don't do it this way. *Don't
rush into it. *"We must have a bill out of Congress by Christmas," *i
s
plain insanity. *YOU will be sorry. *I won't be around when the ****
hits the fan, thank God, but you will. *d;o)

You want a system like the UK and Canada? *Read this: *I pulled this
article from the "Investor's Business Daily." *It provides some
interesting stats from a survey by the UN International Health
Organization.

*
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagno
sis:
U.S.*********** 65% *(two cancers for me)
England****** 46%
Canada******* 42%
*
Percentage of patients diagnosed with*diabetes*who received treatment
within six months:
U.S.************93% (again, me)
England*******15%
Canada********43%
*
Percentage of seniors needing*hip replacement*who received it within
six months:
U.S.*********** 90% (six months? *Hell, try three
*weeks for a friend)
England****** 15%
Canada******* 43%
*
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S.************77% (almost every month for me)
England*******40%
Canada********43%
*
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S.************71
England*******14
Canada********18
*
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in
"excellent health":
U.S.************12% *(hmm, wish I *could* say t
hat)
England*******2%
Canada********6%
*
I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare"
comparable to England or Canada .

Remember old Harry Reid saying, "Edlerly Americans must learn to accept
the inconveniences of old age." *Really? *The inconvieniences? *Fin
e. *
Like having to **** 3 times a night? *No problem. *Like achy bones an
d
sore feet? *No problem. *We should ship his sorry ass to Canada or th
e
UK. *And, btw, do you think members of Congress will have the same
benefits the rest of us do?

I may not know what the hell I am talking about half the time, but I do
know who I vote for, and I've only twice voted for a pig in a poke. *
You seem to make a general practice of it.

Davey, Louie, Asshole, Pig, Imbecile, Dumbass, Idiot, (put your
favorite one here), who will be laughing in his grave when you and
yours have to pay for this giant gluster****! *And pay you will, and
pay, and pay, and pay................

Good god, you are stupid.

Well.....not for much longer! * * *

g.

Yep. *Yuck, yuck. *Dat's me, old stupid Davey. *Yuck, yuck. *Wid 5 mill
in them thar portfolios, duh, just think how much i wud have if'n i was
smart, or edumacated.

You are a one trick pony, Wolfgang, who's only purpose in this life is
to hurt people. *Well, I'm happy to tell you that your name calling
does not hurt me. *It only shows how very small you are. *Your
happiness over my death, however, does hurt. *And you call ME a pig. *
Tsk, tsk.

Dave-

Idiot.

g.-

Hm.....

It occurs to me that there may be a slight problem with terminology
here. Do you know what an idiot with 5 million dollars is? An idiot
with 5 million dollars is an imbecile. Do you know what a dangerously
deranged swine with 5 million dollars is? A dangerously deranged
imbecile with 5 million dollars is a pig. Do you know what a dead
idiot pig with 5 million dollars is? A good welfare pig.

g.
and, after all, what is so difficult about any of that?

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:23:51 -0500, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


"David LaCourse" wrote in message
news:2009121421485178840-dplacourse@aolcom...
The post office has been operating at a loss for, how long? It's just
like Medicare and Medicaid which are both running in the red.

since when does 'operating at a loss' equal 'doing a bad job'? All three
examples given are tasked with responsibilities that no private corporation
would touch.
Medicare and Medicaid run at a much lower administrative overhead than
private health insurers. The post office delivers stuff at a far lower rate
than a private carrier would charge, if anyone could even be found willing
to deliver tons of bulk mail, not to mention letters and greeting cards,
worldwide. You have no clue about what you discuss, sometimes, Louie.
Tom


First, in the US, comparing "the post office" to "private" carriers, ala
FedEx/UPS, whatever is comparing apples and oranges. The USPS has certain
protections (and mandates) that make comparison impossible. In fact, it is
illegal (and companies have been fined) to send "regular mail" via FedEx - a
company cannot send its "routine correspondence" via anything other than the
USPS and it is illegal for FedEx, whatever to place anything in a receptacle
marked for "mail." There are other aspects of the whole thing, but suffice to
say that there is no real basis for comparison. IAC, the USPS is not (directly)
taxpayer-funded, but it is "Federally-governed."

As to Medicaid, it is primarily 50 state-run programs, overseen by the Fed, and
some states (at least in the past - I don't keep up with every state's yearly
Medicaid program) have used private companies to administer it. IAC, your
statement that "Medicaid run(s) at a much lower administrative overhead than
private health insurers" isn't really accurate for a number of reasons, not the
least of which is that Medicaid has never, as an entire program in all 50
states, been run by a private health insurer. Or really, it has never been run
by _any_ single entity, private or governmental. While Medicare is a national
program, it likewise has never been run by a private company, so there is no way
to say with certainty what the results would be should a competent (or
incompetent) private entity run either or both of them.

As I see it, the problem is the amount of money involved - be it
publicly-administered or privately-administered, the amount of money is gonna be
a temptation for all sorts of, um, hijinks. I saw it firsthand with FEMA and
the Katrina recovery. It had nothing whatsoever to do with who was in the WH,
what party was "in control" (or out of control...), or anything else like that.
It had to do with the amount of cold, hard cash and bureaucrats/bureaucracy in
general. And the waste and over-spending was and is nothing short of
mind-boggling. That stupid **** in LA actually _DEMANDED_ a 100 bil blank check
for LA, whereas MS asked for around 7 bil, with controls and guidelines.

And the whole "health care debate" seems to ignore the personal choice aspects
of the situation - for example, if health care is such an important thing to
individuals, why shouldn't they have to pay a larger portion of their income to
get it than, say, a car payment. IOW, if someone chooses a new car (and its
expenses) over insurance when they can only afford one, then why should
"society" subsidize that choice. Granted, this does not address those that can
afford neither. OTOH, those that must (or chose to) depend on "society" for
health care should only be provided the basic level of such support. For
example, those on "food stamps" are allowed to shop wherever they wish, for a
fairly broad range of products (again, granted, there are various programs that
have "outlets" where those on such programs obtain product) - why aren't they
required to obtain basic products at "outlets?" Or at the very least, only
allowed to purchase (at retail) basic, healthy, non-brandname products?

Unfortunately, I foresee the possibility of really disastrous overspending when
"the Fed," even indirectly, oversees such a large segment of money in the US -
look what happened with Freddie and Fannie - and look to the budget itself.

TC,
R

On Dec 15, 9:26*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:23:51 -0500, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:







"David LaCourse" wrote in message
news:2009121421485178840-dplacourse@aolcom...
The post office has been operating at a loss for, how long? *It's just
like Medicare and Medicaid which are both running in the red.

since when does 'operating at a loss' equal 'doing a bad job'? All three
examples given are tasked with responsibilities that no private corporation
would touch.
Medicare and Medicaid run at a much lower administrative overhead than
private health insurers. The post office delivers stuff at a far lower rate
than a private carrier would charge, if anyone could even be found willing
to deliver tons of bulk mail, not to mention letters and greeting cards,
worldwide. You have no clue about what you discuss, sometimes, Louie.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Tom

First, in the US, comparing "the post office" to "private" carriers, ala
FedEx/UPS, whatever is comparing apples and oranges. *The USPS has certain
protections (and mandates) that make comparison impossible. *In fact, it is
illegal (and companies have been fined) to send "regular mail" via FedEx - a
company cannot send its "routine correspondence" via anything other than the
USPS and it is illegal for FedEx, whatever to place anything in a receptacle
marked for "mail." *There are other aspects of the whole thing, but suffice to
say that there is no real basis for comparison. *IAC, the USPS is not (directly)
taxpayer-funded, but it is "Federally-governed."

As to Medicaid, it is primarily 50 state-run programs, overseen by the Fed, and
some states (at least in the past - I don't keep up with every state's yearly
Medicaid program) have used private companies to administer it. *IAC, your
statement that "Medicaid run(s) at a much lower administrative overhead than
private health insurers" isn't really accurate for a number of reasons, not the
least of which is that Medicaid has never, as an entire program in all 50
states, been run by a private health insurer. *Or really, it has never been run
by _any_ single entity, private or governmental. *While Medicare is a national
program, it likewise has never been run by a private company, so there is no way
to say with certainty what the results would be should a competent (or
incompetent) private entity run either or both of them.

As I see it, the problem is the amount of money involved - be it
publicly-administered or privately-administered, the amount of money is gonna be
a temptation for all sorts of, um, hijinks. *I saw it firsthand with FEMA and
the Katrina recovery. *It had nothing whatsoever to do with who was in the WH,
what party was "in control" (or out of control...), or anything else like that.
It had to do with the amount of cold, hard cash and bureaucrats/bureaucracy in
general. *And the waste and over-spending was and is nothing short of
mind-boggling. *That stupid **** in LA actually _DEMANDED_ a 100 bil blank check
for LA, whereas MS asked for around 7 bil, with controls and guidelines.

And the whole "health care debate" seems to ignore the personal choice aspects
of the situation - for example, if health care is such an important thing to
individuals, why shouldn't they have to pay a larger portion of their income to
get it than, say, a car payment. *IOW, if someone chooses a new car (and its
expenses) over insurance when they can only afford one, then why should
"society" subsidize that choice. *Granted, this does not address those that can
afford neither. *OTOH, those that must (or chose to) depend on "society" for
health care should only be provided the basic level of such support. *For
example, those on "food stamps" are allowed to shop wherever they wish, for a
fairly broad range of products (again, granted, there are various programs that
have "outlets" where those on such programs obtain product) - why aren't they
required to obtain basic products at "outlets?" *Or at the very least, only
allowed to purchase (at retail) basic, healthy, non-brandname products? *

Unfortunately, I foresee the possibility of really disastrous overspending when
"the Fed," even indirectly, oversees such a large segment of money in the US -
look what happened with Freddie and Fannie - and look to the budget itself.

TC,
R

Moron.

g.

On Dec 15, 7:26*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:23:51 -0500, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:







"David LaCourse" wrote in message
news:2009121421485178840-dplacourse@aolcom...
The post office has been operating at a loss for, how long? *It's just
like Medicare and Medicaid which are both running in the red.

since when does 'operating at a loss' equal 'doing a bad job'? All three
examples given are tasked with responsibilities that no private corporation
would touch.
Medicare and Medicaid run at a much lower administrative overhead than
private health insurers. The post office delivers stuff at a far lower rate
than a private carrier would charge, if anyone could even be found willing
to deliver tons of bulk mail, not to mention letters and greeting cards,
worldwide. You have no clue about what you discuss, sometimes, Louie.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Tom

First, in the US, comparing "the post office" to "private" carriers, ala
FedEx/UPS, whatever is comparing apples and oranges. *The USPS has certain
protections (and mandates) that make comparison impossible. *In fact, it is
illegal (and companies have been fined) to send "regular mail" via FedEx - a
company cannot send its "routine correspondence" via anything other than the
USPS and it is illegal for FedEx, whatever to place anything in a receptacle
marked for "mail." *There are other aspects of the whole thing, but suffice to
say that there is no real basis for comparison. *IAC, the USPS is not (directly)
taxpayer-funded, but it is "Federally-governed."

As to Medicaid, it is primarily 50 state-run programs, overseen by the Fed, and
some states (at least in the past - I don't keep up with every state's yearly
Medicaid program) have used private companies to administer it. *IAC, your
statement that "Medicaid run(s) at a much lower administrative overhead than
private health insurers" isn't really accurate for a number of reasons, not the
least of which is that Medicaid has never, as an entire program in all 50
states, been run by a private health insurer. *Or really, it has never been run
by _any_ single entity, private or governmental. *While Medicare is a national
program, it likewise has never been run by a private company, so there is no way
to say with certainty what the results would be should a competent (or
incompetent) private entity run either or both of them.

As I see it, the problem is the amount of money involved - be it
publicly-administered or privately-administered, the amount of money is gonna be
a temptation for all sorts of, um, hijinks. *I saw it firsthand with FEMA and
the Katrina recovery. *It had nothing whatsoever to do with who was in the WH,
what party was "in control" (or out of control...), or anything else like that.
It had to do with the amount of cold, hard cash and bureaucrats/bureaucracy in
general. *And the waste and over-spending was and is nothing short of
mind-boggling. *That stupid **** in LA actually _DEMANDED_ a 100 bil blank check
for LA, whereas MS asked for around 7 bil, with controls and guidelines.

And the whole "health care debate" seems to ignore the personal choice aspects
of the situation - for example, if health care is such an important thing to
individuals, why shouldn't they have to pay a larger portion of their income to
get it than, say, a car payment. *IOW, if someone chooses a new car (and its
expenses) over insurance when they can only afford one, then why should
"society" subsidize that choice. *Granted, this does not address those that can
afford neither. *OTOH, those that must (or chose to) depend on "society" for
health care should only be provided the basic level of such support. *For
example, those on "food stamps" are allowed to shop wherever they wish, for a
fairly broad range of products (again, granted, there are various programs that
have "outlets" where those on such programs obtain product) - why aren't they
required to obtain basic products at "outlets?" *Or at the very least, only
allowed to purchase (at retail) basic, healthy, non-brandname products? *

Unfortunately, I foresee the possibility of really disastrous overspending when
"the Fed," even indirectly, oversees such a large segment of money in the US -
look what happened with Freddie and Fannie - and look to the budget itself.

TC,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I will only comment on the waste bit. The two worst areas in the
country for medicare fraud by far, are Texas and Florida. These two
states account for more of the billing "outliers" than all the other
states combined. Much of this arose during the last administration.
Hundreds of providers were authorized and I will let you guess whose
friends these folk tended to be.

And I will not speculate on why the GOP has protested the "cuts" to
programs, like Texas and Florida inhome care, which Obama
investigations have found most fraud prone. Yep, howling like stuck
pigs.
Scheeeech
Dave

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:13:44 -0800 (PST), DaveS wrote:


I will only comment on the waste bit. The two worst areas in the
country for medicare fraud by far, are Texas and Florida.

Please cite your source and the statistics to back up this statement.

HTH,
R

If I can borrow a 'waynoism' he the whole Health Care Reform effort is
now, IMHO, as ****ed up as a soup sandwich. The bill, currently diluted down
almost daily, is going to end up doing very little to address the
fundamental issues, and, in fact, should prove as fodder for those who wish,
in a few years, to say, "see, Reform made things Worse!".
Rick, you make a valid point a few posts back by noting that care above a
certain level ought to be a personal responsibility. I agree, and feel we
need to force people to start facing real choices between shiny baubles and
real needs in life. David illustrates the problem you address when he claims
he wishes to maintain the status quo so he can keep all the goodies, at no
further cost. Finally, Wolfgang hit a key point that has yet to be settled
in a national discourse: is health care an Industry(thus a profit center or
group of them), or a Public Service(such as Fire, Postal and Police
services)? I feel the latter to be true, but it seems that no one wants to
take that debate to the public. Why, I have no idea.
So, what we'll seemingly end up with is a huge gift to the Insurance
industry(Lieberman, Connecticut, Insurance....hmmm, anyone see a
connection?), no addressing of major cost factors, and we'll continue down
the road that will ultimately bankrupt the nation. Sad, actually, but at
this juncture, I agreed with another Dean, who is trying to rally the Dems
to kill the damned bill and start over.
Tom

On Dec 14, 1:15*pm, Larry L wrote:
A week or so ago we got a "tried to deliver" notice in the mailbox. *I
noticed it was from Edmonton Book Store and knew Santa had ordered one
of the books on fishing in Canada I asked forG

Santa put the notice back in the box with a specified delivery day on
it for the mailman to bring it back when we would be here to sign for
it.

It never showed up. * Santa went to the post office and asked and they
couldn't find it "The carrier must have it." * *We asked the carrier
and he doesn't have it ... He "assumed we had picked it up at the post
office."

Thus, it appears that my .... out of print ..... *X-mas gift book is
lost :-(

Bah Humbug

They found it G Seems it had gotten put into the registered
mail safe. The carrier had left it in the 'ordinary' mail to be
picked up location but someone else noticed it required a signature
for delivery and, thus, moved it to the safe with registered mail.

"Larry L" wrote in message
...
They found it G Seems it had gotten put into the registered
mail safe. The carrier had left it in the 'ordinary' mail to be
picked up location but someone else noticed it required a signature
for delivery and, thus, moved it to the safe with registered mail.

Great news, Larry!
.....now, look what a can of worms you openedg!
Tom

On Dec 16, 4:30*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Larry L" wrote in message

...
They found it G * * *Seems it had gotten put into the registered
mail safe. * * *The carrier had left it in the 'ordinary' mail to be
picked up location but someone else noticed it required a signature
for delivery and, thus, moved it to the safe with registered mail.

Great news, Larry!
....now, look what a can of worms you openedg!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom

I'm often amazed at where threads I start end up going.

On Dec 16, 7:06*pm, Larry L wrote:
On Dec 16, 4:30*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:

"Larry L" wrote in message

....
They found it G * * *Seems it had gotten put into the registered
mail safe. * * *The carrier had left it in the 'ordinary' mail to be
picked up location but someone else noticed it required a signature
for delivery and, thus, moved it to the safe with registered mail.

Great news, Larry!
....now, look what a can of worms you openedg!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom

I'm often amazed at where threads I start end up going.

You should be amazed at where they start.

g.