OT - when politics gets personal

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 ;-)

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 )

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

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

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

cheers

oz

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

On Feb 23, 8:06*pm, wrote:

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 think I'm going to be sorry I lurked and popped up.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go repossess some pacemakers and
offer complementary shovels so those who won't pay me 16K upfront for
their potentially life saving treatment can start to help their family
save on their burial costs. The IRS allows me to include on my annual
990 filling as a community benefit further justifying my 501c3 status.

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:51:19 -0800 (PST), Wayne Knight
wrote:

On Feb 23, 8:06*pm, wrote:

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 think I'm going to be sorry I lurked and popped up.

HOLY ****!! It's Beetlejuice the Accountant! Say "health care ripoff" three
times and WOOOSH!, you appear!

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go repossess some pacemakers and
offer complementary shovels so those who won't pay me 16K upfront for
their potentially life saving treatment can start to help their family
save on their burial costs. The IRS allows me to include on my annual
990 filling as a community benefit further justifying my 501c3 status.

Burial costs...? I thought y'all just bulldozed 'em into pits or something...
HEY! I have an idea to save on fuel costs...it seems in about 2 years, we're
gonna be up to our short-hairs in shovel-ready ex-lawyers...we can just divert
some from the liquid precipitation removal system installation department and
send them over to your way...why, shoot, in no time at all, every exec at the
hospital ought to be able to buy that 5th Ferrari...yeah, yeah, yeah, I know,
who really NEEDS a 5th Ferrari? What can I tell you, give it to one of your
maids or something...maybe your gardener's assistant can use it to store
compost...

HTH,
R

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

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, 5:28*pm, Larry L wrote:

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

Sorry to hear about your friend Larry. As a democrat and social
liberal I understand your frustation with the Republican side of the
isle and their inflexible and childish governing style. Unfortunately
the Democrats in Congress are not being entirely truthful as some of
the back alley deals have to indicate. Furthermore this thing is not
so much a healthcare reform bill as some would have you believe though
it would, or more appropriately state "should" offer immediate
financial assistance to your friend's plight, but it does very little
to correct the real or precieved issues in our healthcare processes.

If you want to email me, I might be able to help your friends get
access to some assistance depending where in Idaho they reside and the
actual health issue.

But rather than responding to each specific posts that I think needs a
reponse, other than the three I've already responded to, I'm going to
try to lump a few comments to various posts in here. I apologize in
advance for the length.

For the conservative sounding types, let me point out that you already
subsidize the poor, under insured, and those on Medicare, Medicaid,
VA, and Tricare (Champus). You subsidize them through the costs you
pay now for private insurance or other healthcare services you
purchase out of pocket since the government programs have not
increased their payments in line with the costs of doing business. In
fact that we already have a universal health access program. It's
called the hospital emergency room and by law we have to treat and
stablize any patient regardless of their financial situation. The
issue that needs to be discussed is not what is going to come out of
our pockets in terms of taxes but how does the financial transfers to
the government actually lessen the burden carried by private industry
and individuals? We have already established a de facto right to
healthcare via the emergency process listed above, what we have not
established is who has to pay for it. Like it or not, it is the
privately insured and more specifically the employers who provide the
insurance that are paying subsidizing it. That means we are all paying
for it though various methods, either directly in higher premiums or
in higher prices for the goods and services we purchase.

For Oz and others, it is good that you were able to obtain private
coverage. I am working with a recently widowed friend of the family
here in Indiana who is what most people would consider middle class
but in that no-man's land between the end of her Cobra coverage and
the start of Medicare. We can get her insured, but at $6000 more per
year then her total income. Each state and situation is different and
not everyone can afford it, you were luckier than most. Even within
the same state there are actually two different classes of commercial
health insurance with differing rules. The state regulated plans and
the employer supplied, often self funded plans which are governed
under the Federal statues via the ERISA retirement act.

At the same time, Larry, there is a law which provides a mechanism for
someone who has lost their insurance or had Cobra run out to obtain
other insurance inspite of pre-existing conditions but there is no
provision to govern how much that coverage costs. Hence the issue with
the family friend here. Oz is right in that regard, most anyone can
obtain insurance. What he neglects and other point out is that often
that cost is significant and it forces people to choose between
housing, food, or insurance. And unfortunately are right too when they
bring up the choices people make via livestyle like cell phones, cable
TV, eating out etc instead of buying insurance but that IMO, is a big
social economic issue unrelated to the issue at hand.

For those who mentioned gold standard health care, you need to define
that and really think about what it is you're talking about. A
PetScanner used to detect minute cancers has a seven figure price tag
while the instruments used to provide radiation therapy costs a
multiple of that in many cases. But more specifically, the treatment
of heart attacks has been altered by very expenisive metal rods called
stents. Now many patients can go through a stenting procedure and get
immediate relief and return to a "normal productive" lifestyle in days
instead of months associate with the post op recovery open heart
surgery requires. Those stents are not cheap. Is that a gold standard?
Pin point radiation delivery without damaging as much surrounding
tissue, is that the gold standard? New expensive drugs which reduce or
eliminate certain viruses or tumors? It goes on and before someone
comes back and says they don't want extreme end of life measures, how
can you assume you won't feel that way should it happen to you
tomorrow instead of when you're "old and feeble"?

I could go on and on, there is significant mis information and
misconceptions on both sides out there. Bottom line is the USA has one
of the most expensive health and a significant portion of our
population does not have either ready access to care, the ability to
pay for that care, or both. Costs are high because too many people
can't or won't pay for their services now and that cost gets tacked on
to the already high costs of care for the technology. The present
reform bill does nothing serious to actually reform a payment system
that is weighted heavily towards doing a procedure vis a vis actually
treating the whole patient from a wellness standpoint nor does it do a
thing to address the myriad individual rules and regulations we have
to satisfy to get patients treated and claims adjudicated. I'm all for
reform even if it ends up being a single payor system and ends my
career, but this thing that is out there right now concerns me about
the potential for some very severe unintended consequences.

Enough ramblings, If people sincerly want to discuss this mess further
we can go to email.