Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.

Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:03:47 -0600, Red wrote
(in article <hgbp0l$reb$1@news.albasani.net>):

> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> 
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

As far as I'm concerned the best browser is Safari.

-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

Red <red@neckspam.com> wrote:

> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> 
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

The one which you like best and which works for the web sites you use.

Personally, I use Safari, with Firefox as a backup for some web sites
that don't like Safari. I haven't needed anything else yet.

As you are already using Firefox, you might prefer to stick with that.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

Red <red@neckspam.com> wrote:

> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> 
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

I use Firefox, just like I do when I happen to browse from Windows
(which I don't usually, but happens on occasion). Mostly I use it
because of AdBlockPlus (and flashBlock), which make a world of
difference; all other feature issues pale in comparison.

But really, the real "smart money" says it is a question of personal
choice instead of any one browser being the best thing for everyone.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <hgbp0l$reb$1@news.albasani.net>, Red <red@neckspam.com> 
wrote:

> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> 
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

They are all good enough for most purposes. The smart thing to do is to 
use the browser God gave... I mean Apple supplies (Safari) and see if 
there is anything you don't like..., but have FF latest as backup. 
Depends what you do. One guy here basically loves to hate ads and so he 
gets a lot more satisfaction from FF which has better ad blocking 
facilities. Depends what you do. I use all browsers all the time and do 
little browsing, but for mere browsing nothing much beats Safari for 
speed and sheer good looks. FF is great for a truly fabulous range of 
extensions that can be added if you need them.

-- 
dorayme

Red <red@neckspam.com> writes:

> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

Safari is fine. But Firefox is also very nice (not much different from
Safari) with one of the themes from http://takebacktheweb.org/ and
the Fission extension: http://mozilla.zeniko.ch/fission.html

        Jochem

-- 
 "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no 
 longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
 - Antoine de Saint-Exupery 

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:03:47 -0500, Red wrote:

> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> 
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

I'd pick FF over Safari any day. You have a lot more addons that can do
everything but make popcorn, and, I think, a better interface. Like side
panels for favorites instead of having to switch to the main window, then
switch back. And the reload button is where it belongs, not in the center
where the latest release of Safari puts it. 

The only advantage to Safari is that it's more stable, in my experience,
which is why I'm using it on my iMac for now. I've had a problem for a long
time that FF and every other browser I've tried won't do certain things
that browsers are supposed to do, like post messages in blogs. Something
wrong with my iMac (2 of them, actually). If I ever get the problem solved,
I'll be back with FF in a flash. 

In article <1jatp1d.zsuca71q2hcqmN%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> I use Firefox, just like I do when I happen to browse from Windows
> (which I don't usually, but happens on occasion). Mostly I use it
> because of AdBlockPlus (and flashBlock), which make a world of
> difference; all other feature issues pale in comparison.

For those who may not know, ad blocking for Safari can be had with 
Safari AdBlocker <http://sweetpproductions.com/safariadblocker/> and 
SafariBlock <http://code.google.com/p/safariblock/>, and Flash abatement 
with ClicktoFlash <http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/>.

-- 
Dylan Winslow
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them . . .
well, I have others." -- Marx

In article <dylanw-24592B.17293716122009@news.altopia.com>,
 Dylan Winslow <dylanw@xmission.dot.com> wrote:

> In article <1jatp1d.zsuca71q2hcqmN%nospam@see.signature>,
>  nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
> 
> > I use Firefox, just like I do when I happen to browse from Windows
> > (which I don't usually, but happens on occasion). Mostly I use it
> > because of AdBlockPlus (and flashBlock), which make a world of
> > difference; all other feature issues pale in comparison.
> 
> For those who may not know, ad blocking for Safari can be had with 
> Safari AdBlocker <http://sweetpproductions.com/safariadblocker/> and 
> SafariBlock <http://code.google.com/p/safariblock/>, and Flash abatement 
> with ClicktoFlash <http://rentzsch.github.com/clicktoflash/>.

Note that Safari AdBlocker is 64-bit, but I believe SafariBlock is not. 
I believe both are based on the venerable "AdBlock Plus" extension.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

Red wrote:
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>=20
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

Firefox 3,5.6 http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/10208569 =

and with the 'partner' of Thunderbird 3.0 as the mail (and news) part=20
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/10207484.

Cheers, Erik Richard

--=20
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Richard S=F8rensen, Member of ADC, <mac-manNOSP@Mstofanet.dk>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com
OpenOffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Red:

> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> 
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

What other have said -- the one that suits you best. Since they're
mostly free, you can pretty much take your choice.

Me? Safari first, Firefox second. A familiar pattern among Mac users, I
think.

Welcome to Macintosh.

Davoud

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article <hgbp0l$reb$1@news.albasani.net>, Red <red@neckspam.com> wrote:

> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> 
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

Opera

-- 
 http://northalabamahealthcareforall.org http://healthcareforamericanow.org/ 
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Israeli-Settlers-Protest-
Freeze-on-West-Bank-Construction-78927547.html http://tinyurl.com/yhqf3w4

In article 
<gotermite-387D80.21212616122009@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Jean Smith <gotermite@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <hgbp0l$reb$1@news.albasani.net>, Red <red@neckspam.com> wrote:
> 
> > Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> > 
> > Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
> 
> Opera

Opera is like ... is like ... is like ... a 1957 Citroen DS ... Nice but 
odd!

-- 
dorayme

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:51:37 -0700, salgud wrote:

> Like side
> panels for favorites instead of having to switch to the main window, then
> switch back.

You don't even need that with Safari. You can assign your top nine
favourite sites with "CTRL" + "NUMBER" and you're a click away from any of
them.

In article <hgbp0l$reb$1@news.albasani.net>, Red <red@neckspam.com> 
wrote:

> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> 
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

The browser that comes with your Mac is Safari, and it's pretty good, 
loads real fast, is somewhat Apple-annoying. Firefox is like a comfy ol; 
pair of slippers, and I always wind up back with it. Opera seems to be 
stupidly designed for stupid design's sake. Chrome is interesting, and I 
find myself playing around in it a lot, but it's still in its yout'. 
Camino is pointless. There are some other minor browsers, hardly worth 
looking at:

http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/os_x_browser_battle

(I keep all the major ones around for web design stuff. They're all 
pretty compliant these days, but you never know ...)
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

In article <doraymeRidThis-373C01.16533717122009@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article 
> <gotermite-387D80.21212616122009@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Jean Smith <gotermite@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <hgbp0l$reb$1@news.albasani.net>, Red <red@neckspam.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> > > 
> > > Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
> > 
> > Opera
> 
> Opera is like ... is like ... is like ... a 1957 Citroen DS ... Nice but 
> odd!

Funny comparison. But, still, a good choice for those (like me) who use 
a dial up connection. Their "Turbo" thing works not to bad.

-- 
DC

Red <red@neckspam.com> wrote:

> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> 
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

IMO it's FF for the addons, or Camino for just straight browsing, speed
and the most Mac-like experience. I use FF because I can't live without
certain addons, but it gets rather slow once you've a few dozen tabs
open - as I tend to do.

Safari is ok, but I dislike the way it auto-completes sites in the
address bar, rather than using a menu below (forcing one to delete the
auto-completed bit if you don't want it). Plus it won't automatically
open the last session's windows and tabs - you have to do it manually
ending up with the windows out of place. Also if you forget to restore
tabs during a session you have to restore Safari's prefs using Time
Machine or another backup utility to get them back. What a hassle.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:03:47 -0600, Red wrote
> (in article <hgbp0l$reb$1@news.albasani.net>):
> 
> > Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> > 
> > Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
> 
> As far as I'm concerned the best browser is Safari.

Funny - I'd call it the worst. It keeps forcing me to add extra steps to
everything - delete the auto-complete in the address bar when I don't
want it, restore windows and tabs manually and move the windows back
into place, etc.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article <nospam-C442A4.08482117122009@news.telus.net>,
 DvC <nospam@globetrotter.net> wrote:

> Funny comparison. But, still, a good choice for those (like me) who use 
> a dial up connection. Their "Turbo" thing works not to bad.

There are some annoying issues with Turbo in Opera. It invokes the ol' 
"Click to Activate" crap from Flash, for one.

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20091006/eolas-sues-internet/
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:10:32 +0100, Richard Wakeford wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:51:37 -0700, salgud wrote:
> 
>> Like side
>> panels for favorites instead of having to switch to the main window, then
>> switch back.
> 
> You don't even need that with Safari. You can assign your top nine
> favourite sites with "CTRL" + "NUMBER" and you're a click away from any of
> them.

Which works great, if you only have 9 favorites, and you like memorizing
the number associated with each of them. I have hundreds. Having 9 favs
with memorized keystrokes to access them is eighties technology. Last time
I checked, the eighties were long gone. Except on the Apple world, where
memorizing keystrokes is still de rigeur. 

Red wrote:
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> 
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?


Thanks for all the suggestions!

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:52:44 -0600, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote
(in article <1jawfvg.199w2eh1nvxv7kN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>):

> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:03:47 -0600, Red wrote
>> (in article <hgbp0l$reb$1@news.albasani.net>):
>> 
>>> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>>> 
>>> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
>> 
>> As far as I'm concerned the best browser is Safari.
> 
> Funny - I'd call it the worst. It keeps forcing me to add extra steps to
> everything - delete the auto-complete in the address bar when I don't
> want it, restore windows and tabs manually and move the windows back
> into place, etc.
> 

I guess there are times when it is "different strokes"! I find the auto 
complete most useful and it is trivial to enter a backspace to remove it if 
not needed. I'm not following the commenta on restoring windows and tabs and 
moving windows back into place.  Perhaps an elaboration would help.


-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:20:50 -0700, salgud wrote:

> Which works great, if you only have 9 favorites, and you like memorizing
> the number associated with each of them. I have hundreds. Having 9 favs
> with memorized keystrokes to access them is eighties technology.

I obviously can live with the eighties technology as having hundreds of
favourites would take away cycling time, spending time with friends and
enjoying life. Nine suits me just fine but I can understand how needing
more can be necessary for some people as we all have different needs.

In article <ocpo94apfk5w.1gqmxcsvo5vwc.dlg@40tude.net>, salgud
<spamboy6547@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:10:32 +0100, Richard Wakeford wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:51:37 -0700, salgud wrote:
> > 
> >> Like side
> >> panels for favorites instead of having to switch to the main window, then
> >> switch back.
> > 
> > You don't even need that with Safari. You can assign your top nine
> > favourite sites with "CTRL" + "NUMBER" and you're a click away from any of
> > them.
> 
> Which works great, if you only have 9 favorites, and you like memorizing
> the number associated with each of them. I have hundreds. Having 9 favs
> with memorized keystrokes to access them is eighties technology. Last time
> I checked, the eighties were long gone. Except on the Apple world, where
> memorizing keystrokes is still de rigeur. 

I am not sure what Richard is talking about, because it is "COMMAND" +
number that takes you to one of the first nine URLs in your Bookmarks
Bar. CTRL + number activates Spaces.

I certainly don't know what you are complaining about because:

1. They are called "Bookmarks", not "Favorites" in Safari,
2. You don't have to memorize anything, as the URLs with keystroke
shortcuts are sitting there in your always-visible Bookmarks Bar, and
are also available from the Bookmarks > Bookmarks Bar menu (with
shortcut keys noted), and
3. While you are limited to nine keystroke URLs, there is no limit to
the number of bookmarks you can have.

-- 
Jim Gibson

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:37:34 -0800, Jim Gibson wrote:

> I am not sure what Richard is talking about, because it is "COMMAND" +
> number

That's what I wrote and meant, but badly!

In article <nospam-C442A4.08482117122009@news.telus.net>,
 DvC <nospam@globetrotter.net> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-373C01.16533717122009@news.albasani.net>,
>  dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > In article 
> > <gotermite-387D80.21212616122009@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >  Jean Smith <gotermite@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <hgbp0l$reb$1@news.albasani.net>, Red <red@neckspam.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> > > > 
> > > > Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
> > > 
> > > Opera
> > 
> > Opera is like ... is like ... is like ... a 1957 Citroen DS ... Nice but 
> > odd!
> 
> Funny comparison. But, still, a good choice for those (like me) who use 
> a dial up connection. Their "Turbo" thing works not to bad.

The idea is that it is a very good and interesting browser, the world is 
a better place for it existing, but that it is rather unique in its 
ways. It is made with intelligence and some nice design. In the web 
developing world, it is common to see such expressions as "but not in 
Opera" or "only in Opera"

-- 
dorayme

In article <hgbp0l$reb$1@news.albasani.net>, Red <red@neckspam.com> 
wrote:

> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> 
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

I like and use both Firefox and Safari.   I'd use Firefox more but I 
have a gremlin somewhere that makes it act up on certain sites.

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist


http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo

Red <red@neckspam.com> writes:

> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> 
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

I don't know from "Smart Money" but there are many of them, most of
which are free, and everyone has his or her own preferences.

Safari, of course, comes with the OS and uses Web-Kit
OmniWeb also uses Web-kit

There's FireFox, of course (which I use 99% of the time)
and Camino (Now up to 2.0.1 and which I am using right now to
see how it holds up - and which is built on the same engine as
FireFox and which has some mac-specific features, such as the
use of the Keychain)

There's Opera, too.  And now Google's Chrome browser, too.

Does anyone still use iCab?

A few are dead now, such as Internet Explorer.

I don't think anyone's continuting work on Shiira, either.

Sunrise looks promising, too.  (Also web-kit)

FWIW, the biggest draw for me to Firefox is Adblock+ and
Flashblock.

There are times when a certain page won't behave in it,
though, and in almost every case, Safari made it work.
Similarly, there are pages I've hit in Safari which
failed and only worked in FireFox.  So you might as well
have both at the ready.



-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
   http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> writes:

> not needed. I'm not following the commenta on restoring windows and tabs and 
> moving windows back into place.  Perhaps an elaboration would help.

Firefox and Camino (and OmniWeb) have the ability to remember
your window/tab set when you quit (or when the browser blows up).
When you restart the browser, it "remembers where you were" in
the sense that it'll try to reopen all those windows and tabs
as they were when you last were there.

I find it very helpful.

-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
   http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

In article <yob3a39uwaf.fsf@panix1.panix.com>,
 BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:

> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> writes:
> 
> > not needed. I'm not following the commenta on restoring windows and tabs 
> > and 
> > moving windows back into place.  Perhaps an elaboration would help.
> 
> Firefox and Camino (and OmniWeb) have the ability to remember
> your window/tab set when you quit (or when the browser blows up).
> When you restart the browser, it "remembers where you were" in
> the sense that it'll try to reopen all those windows and tabs
> as they were when you last were there.
> 
> I find it very helpful.

Safari has a History item to Reopen All Windows from Last Session. it's 
just not automatic.

-- 
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint =  5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3  7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:03:47 -0500, in comp.sys.mac.apps Red
<red@neckspam.com> wrote:

>Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

If you are used to Firefox, why not use in on your Mac also?
I use Firefox on three computers, one Windows XP, one iMac (OsX), one
Linux (Ubuntu).

Nico

-- 
Disclaimer: the above is the author's personal opinion and is not
the opinion or policy of his employer or of the little green men
that have been following him all day.

In article <yob7hsluwd3.fsf@panix1.panix.com>,
 BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:

> Does anyone still use iCab?

I do.

-- 
dorayme

In article <tom_stiller-E4C131.18224017122009@news.individual.net>,
 Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Safari has a History item to Reopen All Windows from Last Session. it's 
> just not automatic.

And you can run down it and just pick out the spot you want, which is 
nice.

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist


http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo

On Dec 17, 7:51=A0pm, erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article <tom_stiller-E4C131.18224017122...@news.individual.net>,
> =A0Tom Stiller <tom_stil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Safari has a History item to Reopen All Windows from Last Session. it's
> > just not automatic.
>
> And you can run down it and just pick out the spot you want, which is
> nice.
>
> --
> Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
>
> http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo

I alternate between Opera, Camino, and Conkeror. Camino is, by far,
the most reliable, though for my purposes both Opera and Conkeror have
advantages

TaliesinSoft wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:52:44 -0600, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote
>> Funny - I'd call it the worst. [Safari] keeps forcing me to add extra steps to
>> everything - delete the auto-complete in the address bar when I don't
>> want it, restore windows and tabs manually and move the windows back
>> into place, etc.
> 
> I guess there are times when it is "different strokes"! I find the auto 
> complete most useful and it is trivial to enter a backspace to remove it if 

Isn't it also trivial to turn off auto-completion ?

I could check, but as a FireFox user, too lazy.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Words of the Wild Wes
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW

On 16/12/2009 23:03, Red wrote:
> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

The best browser for you is the one you like the best. Install them all, 
try them and stick with the one YOU like the best.

I love Safari. Technically it might not be the best and Tom, Dick and 
Harry might hate it, but it's the best for ME.

I've tried Firefox, Camino, Omniweb, Safari, Opera, Chrome, but stick 
with Safari. I keep Firefox as a backup because one site I use once a 
month does not like Safari.

My least favourites (imo) Opera and Omniweb - too complicated simply for 
browsing

-- 
Clive

We don't die, we just stop paying taxes.

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:16:46 GMT, Clive Sinclair <clive@cs.com> wrote:

>I love Safari. Technically it might not be the best and Tom, Dick and 
>Harry might hate it, but it's the best for ME.

It doesn't work the way I do, but that's a style thing.    However
some differences apply to all:

One advantage I find with Firefox (with X-marks), and with Opera is
that I can keep my bookmarks automatically synchronized between my Mac
at home and my Windows machine at work.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> TaliesinSoft wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:52:44 -0600, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote
> >> Funny - I'd call it the worst. [Safari] keeps forcing me to add extra
> >> steps to everything - delete the auto-complete in the address bar when
> >> I don't want it, restore windows and tabs manually and move the windows
> >> back into place, etc.
> > 
> > I guess there are times when it is "different strokes"! I find the auto
> > complete most useful and it is trivial to enter a backspace to remove it if
> 
> Isn't it also trivial to turn off auto-completion ?
> 
> I could check, but as a FireFox user, too lazy.

I don't want it off in Safari, just out of the way in a dropdown menu as
with every other browser I use.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:52:44 -0600, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote
> (in article <1jawfvg.199w2eh1nvxv7kN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>):
> 
> > TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:03:47 -0600, Red wrote
> >> (in article <hgbp0l$reb$1@news.albasani.net>):
> >> 
> >>> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> >>> 
> >>> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
> >> 
> >> As far as I'm concerned the best browser is Safari.
> > 
> > Funny - I'd call it the worst. It keeps forcing me to add extra steps to
> > everything - delete the auto-complete in the address bar when I don't
> > want it, restore windows and tabs manually and move the windows back
> > into place, etc.
> > 
> 
> I guess there are times when it is "different strokes"! I find the auto
> complete most useful and it is trivial to enter a backspace to remove it if
> not needed. I'm not following the commenta on restoring windows and tabs and
> moving windows back into place.  Perhaps an elaboration would help.

If I forget to close or have already opened windows tabs I wish to keep,
and then open windows and tabs from the previous session (as I have to
do manually in Safari), then the restored windows are not opened in the
exact same places, but instead are offset from the current window. Plus
I'm faced with having to integrate new windows and tabs into the
restored set (or deal with a mess).

Either way it creates extra steps, even if it's only the closing of the
new window upon starting Safari and the restoring of windows and tabs.
That's a minimum of two extra steps I don't have to take in other
browsers.

Plus it's a damn hassle to have to restore
~/Library/Safari/LastSession.plist from my backups every time I open
Safari and forget to restore the last session before closing it.

Now I grant you all that and having to forward delete often unwanted
auto-completion are small potatoes, but it adds up and in the end it's
just easier to use a browser like Camino (if I don't care about
Firefox's wealth of addons) which is extremely Mac-like and works in a
more logical manner, IMO. i.e. auto-completion in a dropdown menu,
automatic saving and restoration of the last session (or not if you so
desire) with window positions unchanged.

As it happens I use Firefox instead for it's addons and the same logical
behaviour as Camino (and I think almost every other popular browser),
but wish I were using Camino because it's more Mac-like and streamlined.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> Plus it's a damn hassle to have to restore
> ~/Library/Safari/LastSession.plist from my backups every time I open
> Safari and forget to restore the last session before closing it.

I had a problem with Dock not liking NFS-mounted home directories.
Fixed by saving a master copy of the Dock's plist, and having a
cron job copy it in every twenty minutes.

-- 
Wes Groleau

Change is inevitable.
Liberals need to learn that "inevitable" is not a synonym for "good."
Conservatives should learn that "inevitable" is not a synonym for "bad."
                                -- WWG

Browse to http://www.opensourcemac.org/ for useful pointers


On 2009-12-16 18:03:47 -0500, Red <red@neckspam.com> said:

> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> 
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:38:52 -0500, boneless <nobody@nowhere.not>
wrote:

>> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
>> 
>> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

It depends on what you want.    I use FireFox primarily on my Mac. If
it weren't for the Xmarks plug-in I would switch to Opera.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

[from the opening posting in this thread]

>> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox. 
>> 
>> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use? 

To me this is like saying "I just got my driver's license. Which car should I 
 buy?" The "which browser" question is repeatedly asked in these discussions 
and repeatedly there are variant statements of choice. What it all, at least 
in my opinion, boils down to is to give the different browsers each a look 
and then make your choice based upon your own reactions.

-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

On 2009-12-17 00:03:47 +0100, Red <red@neckspam.com> said:

> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> 
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

iCab http://icab.de - build on the same webkit as Safari, has build-in 
filter for everything, like ads. ;) Looks good. Extensive.
- David
-- 
L�s min blog
http://blangstrup.info

In article <4b30b0f0$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
 David Blangstrup <david.blangstrup@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> iCab http://icab.de - build on the same webkit as Safari, has build-in 
> filter for everything, like ads. ;) Looks good. Extensive.
> - David

Why would anyone _pay_ for a browser when the best ones are free? I'm 
assuming that the "Pro" version of iCab has the full features and the 
free version is crippled somehow. Bloody Germans, no wonder we beat them 
twice.
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:51:03 -0500, Warren Oates wrote:

> In article <4b30b0f0$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
>  David Blangstrup <david.blangstrup@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> iCab http://icab.de - build on the same webkit as Safari, has build-in 
>> filter for everything, like ads. ;) Looks good. Extensive.
>> - David
> 
> Why would anyone _pay_ for a browser when the best ones are free? I'm 
> assuming that the "Pro" version of iCab has the full features and the 
> free version is crippled somehow. Bloody Germans, no wonder we beat them 
> twice.

More clues: Doesn't like Germans or woody beets

TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> [from the opening posting in this thread]
> 
> >> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> >> 
> >> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use? 
> 
> To me this is like saying "I just got my driver's license. Which car should I
>  buy?" The "which browser" question is repeatedly asked in these discussions
> and repeatedly there are variant statements of choice. What it all, at least
> in my opinion, boils down to is to give the different browsers each a look
> and then make your choice based upon your own reactions.

However Firefox is probably safe advice in any circumstances. You really
can't go wrong with it. Sure browsers like Camino are more streamlined
and Mac-like than FF, but even using FF without any addons and taking no
advantage of it's functionality, it's still a very decent browser.

Anyway - my perfect browser would be FF with Camino's Mac-ishness and
Safari's speed. Till then I'll live with FF's clunkiness.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <4b30b0f0$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
>  David Blangstrup <david.blangstrup@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > iCab http://icab.de - build on the same webkit as Safari, has build-in
> > filter for everything, like ads. ;) Looks good. Extensive.
> > - David
> 
> Why would anyone _pay_ for a browser when the best ones are free? I'm
> assuming that the "Pro" version of iCab has the full features and the
> free version is crippled somehow. Bloody Germans, no wonder we beat them
> twice.

I actually paid for iCab, but you get the same features regardless. What
paying _does_ do is make available beta versions and a warm glow inside
you, knowing you've supported a hardworking developer instead of being a
jackass who wants everything for nothing. No wonder the German's have
better healthcare.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article fxo9lta3njkp$.1xhzff7xvhrer.dlg@40tude.net, salgud at
spamboy6547@comcast.net wrote on 12/22/09 10:44 AM:

....
....
> 
> More clues: Doesn't like Germans or woody beets

"Doesn't like woody beets" is a prime candidate for a chiasmus. ;)

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

In article 1jb5z8i.xpzdav1h9l87hN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn
Genet at jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/22/09 12:29 PM:

>... No wonder the German's have
> better healthcare.

Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

On 12/22/09 1:31 PM, "Nick Naym" <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> In article 1jb5z8i.xpzdav1h9l87hN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn
> Genet at jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/22/09 12:29 PM:
> 
>> ... No wonder the German's have
>> better healthcare.
> 
> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.

No _everybody_ but at least all the people in the developed nations of the
world.

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:58:02 -0600, Robert Haar wrote (in article 
<C75680EA.481FEC%bobhaar@me.com>): 

> On 12/22/09 1:31 PM, "Nick Naym" <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: 

[responding to the following comment made in the preceding posting in this 
thread] 

>> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare. 
> 
> No _everybody_ but at least all the people in the developed nations of the 
> world. 

What comes to mind is that within the United States we have one of the 
world's foremost problems with obesity. Given that whether or not one is 
obese is something almost completely under control of the individual I would 
think that the overall position of health care in the United States would 
likely be better than it is if only more persons in this country took better 
care of themselves.

-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

In article <0001HW.C756766F0045CC13B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:58:02 -0600, Robert Haar wrote (in article 
> <C75680EA.481FEC%bobhaar@me.com>): 
> 
> > On 12/22/09 1:31 PM, "Nick Naym" <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> [responding to the following comment made in the preceding posting in this 
> thread] 
> 
> >> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare. 
> > 
> > No _everybody_ but at least all the people in the developed nations of the 
> > world. 
> 
> What comes to mind is that within the United States we have one of the 
> world's foremost problems with obesity. Given that whether or not one is 
> obese is something almost completely under control of the individual I would 
> think that the overall position of health care in the United States would 
> likely be better than it is if only more persons in this country took better 
> care of themselves.

  You also have an impact on infant mortality from the US's 
world-leading incidence of premature birth from the US's world-leading 
incidence of teenage pregnancies. You also have the fact that there is a 
much greater impact on life expectancy from the 16 y/o shot during a 
drive by than keeping an old geezer alive for a couple extra years. 
     If I ever win the lottery one of the first things I am going is to 
give a grant to some school of Public Health to get some information on 
how we look on major indicators of healthcare after controlling for 
societally-induced things that are outside the purview of medicine.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <fxo9lta3njkp$.1xhzff7xvhrer.dlg@40tude.net>,
 salgud <spamboy6547@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:51:03 -0500, Warren Oates wrote:
> 
> > In article <4b30b0f0$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
> >  David Blangstrup <david.blangstrup@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> >> iCab http://icab.de - build on the same webkit as Safari, has build-in 
> >> filter for everything, like ads. ;) Looks good. Extensive.
> >> - David
> > 
> > Why would anyone _pay_ for a browser when the best ones are free? I'm 
> > assuming that the "Pro" version of iCab has the full features and the 
> > free version is crippled somehow. Bloody Germans, no wonder we beat them 
> > twice.
> 
> More clues: Doesn't like Germans or woody beets

Living where I do, I get spam in German. The latest batch of diet pill 
spams have subject lines claiming that "Germans are fat"*, which I find 
rather amusing as they are aimed at the wrong country. That translates 
as them sending Brits the message that Americans are fat.

* Spam merchants don't just write lousy English. They write lousy German 
too.

:-)

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <00a95ca5$0$1593$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <4b30b0f0$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
>  David Blangstrup <david.blangstrup@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > iCab http://icab.de - build on the same webkit as Safari, has build-in 
> > filter for everything, like ads. ;) Looks good. Extensive.
> > - David
> 
> Why would anyone _pay_ for a browser when the best ones are free? I'm 
> assuming that the "Pro" version of iCab has the full features and the 
> free version is crippled somehow. Bloody Germans, no wonder we beat them 
> twice.

To be fair, it is a very nice shareware browser, it costs $20! The face 
alone (with attendant reports on the HTML and CSS) is worth this!  One 
click and you get valuable info. As for the limitations, as far as I 
know, just the annoying logo pop up that needs to be clicked away...? It 
is Macishly Mac. There is a lot of stuff built in that other browsers 
have to mess about to get...

To be unfair, a little something I know and tell to selected people only:

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/jokes/franfurtAirport.html>

-- 
dorayme

In article <C7567ACB.4E2A5%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
 Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> In article 1jb5z8i.xpzdav1h9l87hN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn
> Genet at jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/22/09 12:29 PM:
> 
> >... No wonder the German's have
> > better healthcare.
> 
> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.

What about sheep?

-- 
dorayme

In article <doraymeRidThis-451C6E.08241423122009@news.albasani.net>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <00a95ca5$0$1593$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
>  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <4b30b0f0$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
> >  David Blangstrup <david.blangstrup@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > iCab http://icab.de - build on the same webkit as Safari, has build-in 
> > > filter for everything, like ads. ;) Looks good. Extensive.
> > > - David
> > 
> > Why would anyone _pay_ for a browser when the best ones are free? I'm 
> > assuming that the "Pro" version of iCab has the full features and the 
> > free version is crippled somehow. Bloody Germans, no wonder we beat them 
> > twice.
> 
> To be fair, it is a very nice shareware browser, it costs $20! The face 
> alone (with attendant reports on the HTML and CSS) is worth this!  One 
> click and you get valuable info. As for the limitations, as far as I 
> know, just the annoying logo pop up that needs to be clicked away...? It 
> is Macishly Mac. There is a lot of stuff built in that other browsers 
> have to mess about to get...
> 
> To be unfair, a little something I know and tell to selected people only:
> 
> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/jokes/franfurtAirport.html>

And as I recall, iCab had a cutting edge feature set since its infancy
and was fast with a very small foot print. For several years it lagged
behind, mostly in CSS support , I think, and it tended to hang on many
web sites, so I had stopped using it. But with version 4, it seems to
again be a first-class browser. 

I use primarily Firefox, sometimes Safari, but also keep iCab, Camino,
Chrome and Shirra around and use them occasionally. Bottom line, there
is a plethora of browsers available for Mac users today and all of them
are pretty nice browsers. 

Ed H.

-- 
Ed H.

Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> In article 1jb5z8i.xpzdav1h9l87hN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn
> Genet at jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/22/09 12:29 PM:
> 
> >... No wonder the German's have
> > better healthcare.
> 
> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.

LOL - true. Hell, even here in NZ we do a better job - and our system is
far from perfect. Certainly not as good as some European countries.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article <221220091855068912%fake@notreal.net>,
 "Ed H." <fake@notreal.net> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-451C6E.08241423122009@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> And as I recall, iCab had a cutting edge feature set since its infancy
> and was fast with a very small foot print. For several years it lagged
> behind, mostly in CSS support , I think, and it tended to hang on many
> web sites, so I had stopped using it. But with version 4, it seems to
> again be a first-class browser. 
> 
> I use primarily Firefox, sometimes Safari, but also keep iCab, Camino,
> Chrome and Shirra around and use them occasionally. Bottom line, there
> is a plethora of browsers available for Mac users today and all of them
> are pretty nice browsers. 
> 
You speak the truth Ed!

-- 
dorayme

In article <0001HW.C756766F0045CC13B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> What comes to mind is that within the United States we have one of the 
> world's foremost problems with obesity. Given that whether or not one is 
> obese is something almost completely under control of the individual I would 
> think that the overall position of health care in the United States would 
> likely be better than it is if only more persons in this country took better 
> care of themselves.

First we have a plethora of restaurants and all-you-can-eat buffets, sporting 
very tempting, highly-fattening, vitamin-deficient food.
Next, we have a sedentary populace that sits at the computer or TV, while hiring 
out their yardwork and other physical tasks, and we even removed physical 
activity from the schools.
Then we decriminalized being overweight and categorized it as normal, genetic, 
or hormonal.
Obesity has exceeded smoking as a cause of death. It's killing us and all people 
think about is how to pay for their medical care and medications....medications 
usually designed to treat problems associated with obesity--such as cholesterol, 
blood pressure, impotency, heart disease, cancer and blood sugar. 
We are simply NOT facing the problem head-on. 
The REAL question to answer on a daily basis is this:
---> Do I want to live, or do I want to die? <---
If we truly WANT to live, then we CAN do what is needed.
A reasonable diet and regular exercise is just not as much FUN, is it?
It's time to grow up and act like adults.
-- 
Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.
Mark Twain

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:05:30 -0600, Su-Z-Q <reply@this.group> wrote:

>First we have a plethora of restaurants and all-you-can-eat buffets, sporting 
>very tempting, highly-fattening, vitamin-deficient food.

The obesity epidemic is to the Left what homosexuality is to the Right
- an issue that has a large nurture aspect, but evidence shows to be
primarily genetic, and one that they feel a Righteous need to "cure".

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

In article <1jb5z8i.xpzdav1h9l87hN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
 jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> I actually paid for iCab, but you get the same features regardless. What
> paying _does_ do is make available beta versions and a warm glow inside
> you, knowing you've supported a hardworking developer instead of being a
> jackass who wants everything for nothing. No wonder the German's have
> better healthcare.

Better than where?

And I get a warm glow from spending my money on good Scotch instead of a 
2nd rate browser. Nice warm glow.
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:52:29 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote (in article 
<8i44j55cj89200laf43i9sm99dnqigtc75@4ax.com>): 

> The obesity epidemic is to the Left what homosexuality is to the Right - 
> an issue that has a large nurture aspect, but evidence shows to be 
> primarily genetic, and one that they feel a Righteous need to "cure". 

Although there is a genetic aspect to obesity that hardly explains the 
massive increase in obesity in this country (and in many others also) that 
has occurred over the last fifty years. What it comes down to is that people 
tend to be eating more and exercising less, issues that are generally 
completely under the control of the individual, or, in the case of children, 
their parents or guardians.

-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1jb5z8i.xpzdav1h9l87hN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
>  jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> 
> > I actually paid for iCab, but you get the same features regardless. What
> > paying _does_ do is make available beta versions and a warm glow inside
> > you, knowing you've supported a hardworking developer instead of being a
> > jackass who wants everything for nothing. No wonder the German's have
> > better healthcare.
> 
> Better than where?

Do you remember your post?

> And I get a warm glow from spending my money on good Scotch instead of a
> 2nd rate browser. Nice warm glow.

I guess drinking helps you forget being a jerk. You don't like iCab,
don't use it. Clearly you knew nothing about the app you were putting
down, which makes your comments even sillier.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:52:29 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote (in article 
> <8i44j55cj89200laf43i9sm99dnqigtc75@4ax.com>): 
> 
> > The obesity epidemic is to the Left what homosexuality is to the Right -
> > an issue that has a large nurture aspect, but evidence shows to be 
> > primarily genetic, and one that they feel a Righteous need to "cure".
> 
> Although there is a genetic aspect to obesity that hardly explains the
> massive increase in obesity in this country (and in many others also) that
> has occurred over the last fifty years. What it comes down to is that people
> tend to be eating more and exercising less, issues that are generally
> completely under the control of the individual, or, in the case of children,
> their parents or guardians.

Indeed - the genetic element is (massive simplification here) we've
evolved so our bodies work best with certain foods and exercise, and to
pile on the fat in good times in preperation for the bad times.

Thus we do badly when we eat too much crap and do bugger all exercise.
Hardly surprising, but that's humans for ya.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:31:55 -0500, Nick Naym
<nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

>>... No wonder the German's have
>> better healthcare.
>
>Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.

Not nearly.    Even in the most Liberal measurements, the U.S. is in
the top 20, and that is marking the U.S. down considerably for the
cost of our health care, which really should be measured separately.

Old folk in the U.S. have better care than most advanced countries. We
have more uninsured, worse pre-natal care and much more expensive
paperwork.

The new program won't make the paperwork costs drop, as it is designed
to make sure the medical industry will still get rich.

But we will continue to lead the world in production of important
drugs designed to combat erectile dysfunction.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:38:39 -0600, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com>
wrote:

>> The obesity epidemic is to the Left what homosexuality is to the Right - 
>> an issue that has a large nurture aspect, but evidence shows to be 
>> primarily genetic, and one that they feel a Righteous need to "cure". 
>
>Although there is a genetic aspect to obesity that hardly explains the 
>massive increase in obesity in this country (and in many others also) that 
>has occurred over the last fifty years. What it comes down to is that people 
>tend to be eating more and exercising less, issues that are generally 
>completely under the control of the individual, or, in the case of children, 
>their parents or guardians.

While I can still point out the twins studies that seem to always show
separated at birth twins to be the same weight, and to expensive
programs designed to get kids trim, but failed - I will use the same
argument that I use with homosexuality, which is  "why should we
care?".    It doesn't hurt us.

Of course there is a counter argument that it costs us all in medical
care costs.    But so does every activity that has an element of
danger.    Jack Williamson's "With Folded Hands" is my idea of horror.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

 Just Read "Good Calories Bad Calories" and find this video a  good 
companion to addressing some of the heath issues in the last 30 years.  
It is 1.5 hrs long.  I saved it.

  Bill

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM>

-- 
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM    deasl with Sugars

In article <8i44j55cj89200laf43i9sm99dnqigtc75@4ax.com>,
 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> The obesity epidemic is to the Left what homosexuality is to the Right

With the small difference that the one is not so bad for men's health 
whereas the other is both corrosive to the people themselves and the 
society at large (no pun intended).

-- 
dorayme

In article <0001HW.C757878F001EC7B3B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
 
> Although there is a genetic aspect to obesity that hardly explains the 
> massive increase in obesity in this country (and in many others also) that 
> has occurred over the last fifty years. What it comes down to is that people 
> tend to be eating more and exercising less, issues that are generally 
> completely under the control of the individual, or, in the case of children, 
> their parents or guardians.

You can't admit that that there is a big genetic factor and in the same 
breath talk about how so "completely" something is under the control of 
someone.

-- 
dorayme

In article <92k4j5t97eolfp7u2lfhjngckmuq96le1v@4ax.com>,
 Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> While I can still point out the twins studies that seem to always show
> separated at birth twins to be the same weight, and to expensive
> programs designed to get kids trim, but failed - I will use the same
> argument that I use with homosexuality, which is  "why should we
> care?".    It doesn't hurt us.

Howard, are you serious? Get out more, mate and visit a general 
hospital, go visit 50 doctors and ask them about their patients...

-- 
dorayme

In article <1jb7mcp.y4hbnf6iye99N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
 jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> Do you remember your post?
> 
> > And I get a warm glow from spending my money on good Scotch instead of a
> > 2nd rate browser. Nice warm glow.
> 
> I guess drinking helps you forget being a jerk. You don't like iCab,
> don't use it. Clearly you knew nothing about the app you were putting
> down, which makes your comments even sillier.

Krauts don't have better health care than where I live. I used iCab, and 
it sucked. I don't see the point of Camino, either, but it's okay as a 
browser, it's just a reworking of FF. Nice warm glow.
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

Howard Brazee wrote:

> The obesity epidemic is to the Left what homosexuality is to the Right
> - an issue that has a large nurture aspect, but evidence shows to be
> primarily genetic, and one that they feel a Righteous need to "cure".

There's an epidemic of homosexuality??

Both have a positive aspect in that they tend to limit population 
growth, though the obese tend to propagate before they expire.

-- 
john mcwilliams

In article <0001HW.C756766F0045CC13B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> Given that whether or not one is 
> obese is something almost completely under control of the individual

Care to back that up with scientific evidence? Because there's a lot of 
evidence for the opposite proposition.

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would
have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His
existence. (Bertrand Russell)

>>> ... No wonder the German's have
>>> better healthcare.
>> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.
> 
> No _everybody_ but at least all the people in the developed nations of the
> world.

A recent National Geographic contained a graphic showing many different 
countries.  On the left was the country's average per capita annual 
expense on health care.  On the left was life expectancy.  To help
the viewer, each country's to points were connected by a straight line.

Two countries' lines where red, the rest were green.  I  do not know 
what that means.  One of those was México, the other was USA.  Both were
close to the average for life expectancy.

México's per capita expense was the lowest; USA's was the highest.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Learning to see the forest instead of the trees.
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=75

D.F. Manno wrote:
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
>> Given that whether or not one is 
>> obese is something almost completely under control of the individual
> 
> Care to back that up with scientific evidence? Because there's a lot of 
> evidence for the opposite proposition.

Much of that evidence is misleading.  There are genetic reasons
that account for some obesity, but even in most of those cases
it is possible (though perhaps _very_ uncomfortable) to control
the weight by controlling diet.

Another factor that clouds the issue are the falsehoods about
nutrition that have been pushed on us for decades--even though
the evidence against them was already known to researchers who
for some reason weren't protesting.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Elevated pronunciation
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=994

Wes Groleau wrote:
> [summary] México and USA--both were
> close to the average for life expectancy.
> 
> México's per capita health-care expense
 > was the lowest; USA's was the highest.

In keeping with other posts in this thread,
let me speculate:

Could it have something to do with the fact
that most Mexicans have to get a lot more exercise
than most Americans just to pay the bills?

Could it have something to do with the fact
that most Mexicans can't afford the amount
of food that is making their northern neighbors
so fat?

Could it have something to do with the fact
that most Mexicans can't afford the _kind_
of food that is harming the health of those
northern neighbors?

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Angry disruption in class
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1455

On Dec 23, 6:05=A0am, Su-Z-Q <re...@this.group> wrote:
> In article <0001HW.C756766F0045CC13B0102...@News.Individual.NET>,
>
> =A0TaliesinSoft <taliesins...@me.com> wrote:
><<>>
> Then we decriminalized being overweight <<snipped>>

ok, you will have to educate me as to when it has been a crime to be
obese.

Linda H.

In article 0001HW.C756766F0045CC13B01029BF@News.Individual.NET, TaliesinSoft
at taliesinsoft@me.com wrote on 12/22/09 2:13 PM:

> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:58:02 -0600, Robert Haar wrote (in article
> <C75680EA.481FEC%bobhaar@me.com>):
> 
>> On 12/22/09 1:31 PM, "Nick Naym" <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> [responding to the following comment made in the preceding posting in this
> thread] 
> 
>>> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.
>> 
>> No _everybody_ but at least all the people in the developed nations of the
>> world. 
> 
> What comes to mind is that within the United States we have one of the
> world's foremost problems with obesity. Given that whether or not one is
> obese is something almost completely under control of the individual I would
> think that the overall position of health care in the United States would
> likely be better than it is if only more persons in this country took better
> care of themselves.

That's _health_ -- a different issue than health _care_. The latter is a
service which many -- if not most -- (developed) countries consider an
essential service, akin to police, fire, sanitation, etc. In the US, it's
treated as an unregulated market, driven solely by shareholder profit, not
social need. IMNSHO, if health care is allowed to be totally unregulated --
free, even, from the basic monopoly and antitrust restrictions and
regulations imposed on virtually every other industry -- then why don't we
farm out police, fire, sanitation, etc. to the private sector?

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

In article doraymeRidThis-463A0D.08262823122009@news.albasani.net, dorayme
at doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au wrote on 12/22/09 4:26 PM:

> In article <C7567ACB.4E2A5%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
>  Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article 1jb5z8i.xpzdav1h9l87hN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn
>> Genet at jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/22/09 12:29 PM:
>> 
>>> ... No wonder the German's have
>>> better healthcare.
>> 
>> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.
> 
> What about sheep?

You should be the Aussie poster boy for needed improvements in that
country's mental-health treatment and delivery system.

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

In article 1jb69ya.9u6l7pnnz4kzN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn
Genet at jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/22/09 8:10 PM:

> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article 1jb5z8i.xpzdav1h9l87hN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn
>> Genet at jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/22/09 12:29 PM:
>> 
>>> ... No wonder the German's have
>>> better healthcare.
>> 
>> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.
> 
> LOL - true. Hell, even here in NZ we do a better job - and our system is
> far from perfect. Certainly not as good as some European countries.

It's driven by a right-wing, knee-jerk fear reaction to anything with the
word "social" in it (e.g., social democracy, social security, social
services, etc.). Back in the 1950s/1960s, the wingnuts mounted opposition
against local government plans to fluoridate the water supplies. Back then
it wasn't because it was just another example of "creeping socialism"; it
was worse than that: It was a "communist-sponsored plot" to "undermine
public health." 

My fellow Americans can be world-class assholes. The right-wing wingnuts
_are_ world-class assholes.

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

In article cnj4j5tlo5effsllvu08aivd4p58tma1au@4ax.com, Howard Brazee at
howard@brazee.net wrote on 12/23/09 12:14 PM:

....
....
> 
> The new program won't make the paperwork costs drop, as it is designed
> to make sure the medical industry will still get rich.
> 
> But we will continue to lead the world in production of important
> drugs designed to combat erectile dysfunction.

No doubt due, in part, to the fact that most of our politicians are
hard-ons.

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

In article doraymeRidThis-8CB8CC.06551924122009@news.albasani.net, dorayme
at doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au wrote on 12/23/09 2:55 PM:

> In article <8i44j55cj89200laf43i9sm99dnqigtc75@4ax.com>,
>  Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> 
>> The obesity epidemic is to the Left what homosexuality is to the Right
> 
> With the small difference that the one is not so bad for men's health
> whereas the other is both corrosive to the people themselves and the
> society at large (no pun intended).

Including your poor sheep?


-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

In article <doraymeRidThis-451C6E.08241423122009@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> To be unfair, a little something I know and tell to selected people only:
> 
> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/jokes/franfurtAirport.html>
> 

Frankfurt has a k.

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist


http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo

In article <0001HW.C756766F0045CC13B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> What comes to mind is that within the United States we have one of the 
> world's foremost problems with obesity. Given that whether or not one is 
> obese is something almost completely under control of the individual I would 
> think that the overall position of health care in the United States would 
> likely be better than it is if only more persons in this country took better 
> care of themselves.

And there are other countries developing obesity problems now, too 8-)

However, despite the extremely good health care available to those who 
can afford it here in the US, the enormous number of people who can't 
puts us to  shame compared to other developed countries.

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist


http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo

In article <paul.nospam-0650F1.21055422122009@pbook.sture.ch>,
 Paul Sture <paul.nospam@sture.ch> wrote:

> Living where I do, I get spam in German. 

I do, too, but it's not where I live that does it, I suspect, but the 
fact that I visit German sites and have German corespondents.  My spam 
filter catches most of it, but a funny one did get through a while 
back--a Nigerian scam in German as bad as the ones in English 8-)

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist


http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:14:05 -0500, Wes Groleau
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

>In keeping with other posts in this thread,
>let me speculate:
>
>Could it have something to do with the fact
>that most Mexicans have to get a lot more exercise
>than most Americans just to pay the bills?


Although it is interesting to speculate about this in conjunction to
claims about USAmericans being obese.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

In article <drache-E804DE.18510523122009@news.eternal-september.org>,
 erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-451C6E.08241423122009@news.albasani.net>,
>  dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > To be unfair, a little something I know and tell to selected people only:
> > 
> > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/jokes/franfurtAirport.html>
> > 
> 
> Frankfurt has a k.

Thank you. The heading was a typo...

-- 
dorayme

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:59:54 -0600, dorayme wrote (in article 
<doraymeRidThis-F02783.06595424122009@news.albasani.net>): 

> In article <0001HW.C757878F001EC7B3B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>, 
> TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: 
> 
>> Although there is a genetic aspect to obesity that hardly explains the 
>> massive increase in obesity in this country (and in many others also) 
>> that has occurred over the last fifty years. What it comes down to is 
>> that people tend to be eating more and exercising less, issues that are 
>> generally completely under the control of the individual, or, in the case 
>> of children, their parents or guardians. 
> 
> You can't admit that that there is a big genetic factor and in the same 
> breath talk about how so "completely" something is under the control of 
> someone. 

But I stated "although there is a genetic aspect" not "a big genetic factor". 
I find difficult to associate the significant increase in obesity, especially 
in the United States, with genetic factors and not just poor management of 
one's physical self. 

-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

In article <C757FF98.4E39A%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym
<nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

>  if health care is allowed to be totally unregulated --
> free, even, from the basic monopoly and antitrust restrictions and
> regulations imposed on virtually every other industry -- then why 
> don't we farm out police, fire, sanitation, etc. to the private sector?

Regulating it presents another huge problem.

We could easily make health care much worse by
picking the wrong people to regulate it.

What is your suggestion for that gnarly problem?

Mark-

In article <0001HW.C7583DF6002A08CBB02A89BF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:59:54 -0600, dorayme wrote (in article 
> <doraymeRidThis-F02783.06595424122009@news.albasani.net>): 
> 
> > In article <0001HW.C757878F001EC7B3B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>, 
> > TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: 
> > 
> >> Although there is a genetic aspect to obesity that hardly explains the 
> >> massive increase in obesity in this country (and in many others also) 
> >> that has occurred over the last fifty years. What it comes down to is 
> >> that people tend to be eating more and exercising less, issues that are 
> >> generally completely under the control of the individual, or, in the case 
> >> of children, their parents or guardians. 
> > 
> > You can't admit that that there is a big genetic factor and in the same 
> > breath talk about how so "completely" something is under the control of 
> > someone. 
> 
> But I stated "although there is a genetic aspect" not "a big genetic factor". 
> I find difficult to associate the significant increase in obesity, especially 
> in the United States, with genetic factors and not just poor management of 
> one's physical self.

It is hard to know what you are thinking of as big or small factor. It 
is a big factor as far as I can tell from the science known and 
indicated strongly. So I will tell you what I mean by big. If millions 
of people have ample opportunity to eat as much as they like and all 
have equal opportunity to exercise and the millions that do grow really 
fat almost overwhelmingly have a genetic factor that the millions who 
don't lack, then it is a big factor...

-- 
dorayme

Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> In article 0001HW.C756766F0045CC13B01029BF@News.Individual.NET, TaliesinSoft
> at taliesinsoft@me.com wrote on 12/22/09 2:13 PM:
> 
> > On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:58:02 -0600, Robert Haar wrote (in article
> > <C75680EA.481FEC%bobhaar@me.com>):
> > 
> >> On 12/22/09 1:31 PM, "Nick Naym" <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > [responding to the following comment made in the preceding posting in this
> > thread] 
> > 
> >>> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.
> >> 
> >> No _everybody_ but at least all the people in the developed nations of the
> >> world. 
> > 
> > What comes to mind is that within the United States we have one of the
> > world's foremost problems with obesity. Given that whether or not one is
> > obese is something almost completely under control of the individual I would
> > think that the overall position of health care in the United States would
> > likely be better than it is if only more persons in this country took better
> > care of themselves.
> 
> That's _health_ -- a different issue than health _care_. The latter is a
> service which many -- if not most -- (developed) countries consider an
> essential service, akin to police, fire, sanitation, etc. In the US, it's
> treated as an unregulated market, driven solely by shareholder profit, not
> social need. IMNSHO, if health care is allowed to be totally unregulated --
> free, even, from the basic monopoly and antitrust restrictions and
> regulations imposed on virtually every other industry -- then why don't we
> farm out police, fire, sanitation, etc. to the private sector?

I wouldn't give them any ideas, IIWY.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article <doraymeRidThis-F02783.06595424122009@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <0001HW.C757878F001EC7B3B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
>  
> > Although there is a genetic aspect to obesity that hardly explains the 
> > massive increase in obesity in this country (and in many others also) that 
> > has occurred over the last fifty years. What it comes down to is that 
> > people 
> > tend to be eating more and exercising less, issues that are generally 
> > completely under the control of the individual, or, in the case of 
> > children, 
> > their parents or guardians.
> 
> You can't admit that that there is a big genetic factor and in the same 
> breath talk about how so "completely" something is under the control of 
> someone.

Why not?  There is a genetic component to alcoholism and yet the 
indulging part is under the person's control. VERY hard to control, but 
under the control none the less. The genetic component is also a 
TENDENCY toward obesity.  What you take in and how much exercise you do 
is very much under a person's control. Haven't yet seen any kind of 
study indicating otherwise.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <dfmanno-99428B.15545223122009@news.albasani.net>,
 "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> In article <0001HW.C756766F0045CC13B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
> > Given that whether or not one is 
> > obese is something almost completely under control of the individual
> 
> Care to back that up with scientific evidence? Because there's a lot of 
> evidence for the opposite proposition.

   Haven't seen anything yet that says genetics requires one to over eat 
and/or not exercise. There is plenty of genetic (and evolutionary for 
that matter) evidence that the tendency toward obesity may be related in 
that they might process store excess nutrition differently. But nothing 
I have seen indicates that there is a genetic imperative to shovel 
supersized Happy meals down one's throat instead of fruits and 
vegetables.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <IZOdnSqtNudNiK7WnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 26 <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-F02783.06595424122009@news.albasani.net>,
>  dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > In article <0001HW.C757878F001EC7B3B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>,
> >  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> >  
> > > Although there is a genetic aspect to obesity that hardly explains the 
> > > massive increase in obesity in this country (and in many others also) 
> > > that 
> > > has occurred over the last fifty years. What it comes down to is that 
> > > people 
> > > tend to be eating more and exercising less, issues that are generally 
> > > completely under the control of the individual, or, in the case of 
> > > children, 
> > > their parents or guardians.
> > 
> > You can't admit that that there is a big genetic factor and in the same 
> > breath talk about how so "completely" something is under the control of 
> > someone.
> 
> Why not?  

Because if you are thinking the genetic factor is significant, this puts 
pressure on the folks with it to exercise *more control* than those 
without the genetic factor. Food is a big part of normal daily living 
and pleasure (it is not really something extra to life). You cannot at 
the same time be comfortable about the control while being impressed by 
the genetics. It is a logical matter.
 
> There is a genetic component to alcoholism and yet the 
> indulging part is under the person's control. VERY hard to control, but 
> under the control none the less. The genetic component is also a 
> TENDENCY toward obesity.  What you take in and how much exercise you do 
> is very much under a person's control. Haven't yet seen any kind of 
> study indicating otherwise.

It is not the studies you should be concentrating on but the logical 
relations here.

-- 
dorayme

In article 231220092058574529%aeiou@mostly.invalid, Mark Conrad at
aeiou@mostly.invalid wrote on 12/23/09 11:58 PM:

> In article <C757FF98.4E39A%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym
> <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>  if health care is allowed to be totally unregulated --
>> free, even, from the basic monopoly and antitrust restrictions and
>> regulations imposed on virtually every other industry -- then why
>> don't we farm out police, fire, sanitation, etc. to the private sector?
> 
> Regulating it presents another huge problem.
> 
> We could easily make health care much worse by
> picking the wrong people to regulate it.

What??
 
> What is your suggestion for that gnarly problem?
> 

Level the freakin' playing field: Require the Industry to abide by the same
rules and regulations that virtually every other industry in this country is
subject to. IOW, remove the "antitrust exemption" that the Industry enjoys.
<sheesh>
-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> writes:

> It is hard to know what you are thinking of as big or small factor. It 
> is a big factor as far as I can tell from the science known and 
> indicated strongly. So I will tell you what I mean by big. If millions 
> of people have ample opportunity to eat as much as they like and all 
> have equal opportunity to exercise and the millions that do grow really 
> fat almost overwhelmingly have a genetic factor that the millions who 
> don't lack, then it is a big factor...

Still, this is all semantics. If there are genetic factors that lead
people to look for happiness and satisfaction in eating (and generally
consuming) and other genetic factors that make them passive and lazy,
does this mean there is a genetic factor for being overweight?

I think a real genetic factor would be if it would lead to people eating
and move around as much as others and still gain much more weight.

I have no doubt that there is a strong tendency for humans to enjoy
eating and to shun labor. This can be neutralized by having learned to
enjoy *doing* things instead of consuming things and also to enjoy
things that involve effort and moving around. Reducing this to "diet"
and "exercising" is not a solution, but part of the problem. Seeking
happiness in consuming and looking for security in comfort is very much
a cultural thing. That the age of the consumer and the age of the
machines is the age of the overweight is not really surprising.


        Jochem

-- 
 "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no 
 longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
 - Antoine de Saint-Exupery 

In article 1jb8nsk.dzpb3s1s6fkfzN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn
Genet at jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/24/09 1:21 AM:

> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article 0001HW.C756766F0045CC13B01029BF@News.Individual.NET, TaliesinSoft
>> at taliesinsoft@me.com wrote on 12/22/09 2:13 PM:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:58:02 -0600, Robert Haar wrote (in article
>>> <C75680EA.481FEC%bobhaar@me.com>):
>>> 
>>>> On 12/22/09 1:31 PM, "Nick Naym" <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> [responding to the following comment made in the preceding posting in this
>>> thread] 
>>> 
>>>>> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.
>>>> 
>>>> No _everybody_ but at least all the people in the developed nations of the
>>>> world. 
>>> 
>>> What comes to mind is that within the United States we have one of the
>>> world's foremost problems with obesity. Given that whether or not one is
>>> obese is something almost completely under control of the individual I would
>>> think that the overall position of health care in the United States would
>>> likely be better than it is if only more persons in this country took better
>>> care of themselves.
>> 
>> That's _health_ -- a different issue than health _care_. The latter is a
>> service which many -- if not most -- (developed) countries consider an
>> essential service, akin to police, fire, sanitation, etc. In the US, it's
>> treated as an unregulated market, driven solely by shareholder profit, not
>> social need. IMNSHO, if health care is allowed to be totally unregulated --
>> free, even, from the basic monopoly and antitrust restrictions and
>> regulations imposed on virtually every other industry -- then why don't we
>> farm out police, fire, sanitation, etc. to the private sector?
> 
> I wouldn't give them any ideas, IIWY.

The irony of it all is that many police, fire, sanitation, etc. employees
are politically quite conservative (but not, of course, when it comes to the
economics of the markets for the services that _they_ provide).

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

In article <m27hscn5pd.fsf@revier.com>, Jochem Huhmann <joh@gmx.net> 
wrote:

> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> writes:
> 
> > It is hard to know what you are thinking of as big or small factor. It 
> > is a big factor as far as I can tell from the science known and 
> > indicated strongly. So I will tell you what I mean by big. If millions 
> > of people have ample opportunity to eat as much as they like and all 
> > have equal opportunity to exercise and the millions that do grow really 
> > fat almost overwhelmingly have a genetic factor that the millions who 
> > don't lack, then it is a big factor...
> 
> Still, this is all semantics. If there are genetic factors that lead
> people to look for happiness and satisfaction in eating (and generally
> consuming) and other genetic factors that make them passive and lazy,
> does this mean there is a genetic factor for being overweight?
>
 
Semantics are an important part of any argument. Imagine if all the 
words we are using now meant different things; the argument would be 
quite different. it might be about sheep or something. So that is the 
first point. 

The second is that, given what we mean by our words, is it the case that 
there is tension between admitting a genetic factor that makes it 
difficult to control some activity and saying that those with that 
genetic factor have less control. The answer seems plain enough to me in 
this particular case, it is yes.

The main point is that people with genetic factors to obesity need much 
more self control. So telling them to exercise it is to tell them to do 
something that is the more difficult, the more the genetic factor is 
big. There is a link and a tension here. 
 
> I think a real genetic factor would be if it would lead to people eating
> and move around as much as others and still gain much more weight.
> 

That is not the crucial test, it is a simple fact that by and large, if 
people of the same weight eat exactly the same and exercise exactly the 
same, they will differ not that much. There are probably interesting 
differences but they would not be gross.

-- 
dorayme

In article <doraymeRidThis-75F98B.18412024122009@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> Because if you are thinking the genetic factor is significant, this puts 
> pressure on the folks with it to exercise *more control* than those 
> without the genetic factor. Food is a big part of normal daily living 
> and pleasure (it is not really something extra to life). You cannot at 
> the same time be comfortable about the control while being impressed by 
> the genetics. It is a logical matter.

     I see no problem with the logic. The hardness of the control is 
beside the point, it is the that it CAN be done. Heck I have that 
problem being a yo-yo dieter. When people ask me how much I have lost, 
it is probably 900 or more pounds. But the fact remains that the upward 
yo is ALWAYS accompanied by my actions of starting to graze again, 
deciding I can't get around to exercising, etc. 

>  
> > There is a genetic component to alcoholism and yet the 
> > indulging part is under the person's control. VERY hard to control, but 
> > under the control none the less. The genetic component is also a 
> > TENDENCY toward obesity.  What you take in and how much exercise you do 
> > is very much under a person's control. Haven't yet seen any kind of 
> > study indicating otherwise.
> 
> It is not the studies you should be concentrating on but the logical 
> relations here.

   The logical relations don't exist, as my own experience shows.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> writes:

> The main point is that people with genetic factors to obesity need much 
> more self control. So telling them to exercise it is to tell them to do 
> something that is the more difficult, the more the genetic factor is 
> big. There is a link and a tension here. 

Of course they need more self control because eating and consuming is
more important to them than doing and moving. Restricting that is like
trying not to breathe then. What you have to tell them is not "eat
less" but "do other things that make you feel satisfied and in control".

>> I think a real genetic factor would be if it would lead to people eating
>> and move around as much as others and still gain much more weight.
>> 
>
> That is not the crucial test, it is a simple fact that by and large, if 
> people of the same weight eat exactly the same and exercise exactly the 
> same, they will differ not that much. There are probably interesting 
> differences but they would not be gross.

OK, you agree then that what this genetic factor does is not to directly
cause overweight but to cause enjoy eating too much and enjoy moving too
less (which then causes overweight)? And don't forget about the cultural
reasons for that. Passively consuming and at the same time avoiding any
kind of exertion is enticing and can become a life-long habit if learned
early enough. Eating can become an addiction, exactly like driving even
the smallest distances instead of walking, and using power tools for
everything.


Happy holidays, by the way.


        Jochem

-- 
 "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no 
 longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
 - Antoine de Saint-Exupery 

In article <C7588BF6.4E3EC%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym
<nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> > We could easily make health care much worse by
> > picking the wrong people to regulate it.
> 
> What??

Wadda ya mean  "What??"  - - - you really want stupid 
politicians screwing with  _your_  health care?


> Level the freakin' playing field: Require the Industry to 
> abide by the same rules and regulations that virtually 
> every other industry in this country is subject to.

R-i-g-h-t   - Pretend health care regulation is as 
simple as regulating interstate truck traffic. <sheesh>



> ...remove the "antitrust exemption"...

Now that might help, provided it is judiciously applied.

There are thousands of different support industries 
associated with health care.  I kinda agree that no one blood
analysis laboratory should be allowed to corner the market 
nationwide.

....but by the same token, assume that   _you_   need to have 
surgery, and during that surgery someone does the usual thing
and dumps type "O" blood into you, they even get the 
"Rhesus factor" of your blood correct.

You are home free, right?  You survive the surgery and start
mending - - - then a few weeks later you die!

Why? - Because your fly-by-night competitive "regulated" 
blood lab did not check you for rare blood types, and you 
have the rare "Bombay phenotype"  type of blood.
(there are about 200 rare blood types)


   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hh_antigen_system

The rare individuals with Bombay phenotype do not express H substance
on their red blood cells and therefore do not bind A or B antigens.
Instead, they produce antibodies to H substance (which is present on
all red cells except those of hh phenotype) as well as to both A and B
antigens and are therefore compatible only with other hh donors. 

Individuals with Bombay phenotype blood groups can only be transfused
with blood from other Bombay phenotype individuals. Given that this
condition is very rare to begin with, any person with this blood group,
who needs an urgent blood transfusion, may be simply out of luck, as it
would be quite unlikely that any blood bank would have any in stock. 
   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -

You are dead because your  f******   ignorant politicians were 
screwing around trying to regulate health care in the same way
that they regulate the trucking industry.

A top-of-the-line   _unregulated_   blood lab would have 
spotted your rare blood type.

In this case I am all for monopoly, screw antitrust, I want
competent health care, not Walmart health care.

Mark-

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:15:27 -0600, dorayme wrote
(in article <doraymeRidThis-B80A0B.16152724122009@news.albasani.net>):

[continuing in the discussion in this thread regarding obesity]

> It is hard to know what you are thinking of as big or small factor. It 
> is a big factor as far as I can tell from the science known and 
> indicated strongly. So I will tell you what I mean by big. If millions 
> of people have ample opportunity to eat as much as they like and all 
> have equal opportunity to exercise and the millions that do grow really 
> fat almost overwhelmingly have a genetic factor that the millions who 
> don't lack, then it is a big factor...

Given that the percentage of those with a "genetic propensity for obesity" is 
small I wouldn't consider that to be a "big" factor in regards to the massive 
increase in obesity, especially that here in the United States. And, I'm one 
who is willing to state that for the majority of the population obesity is 
something that can be avoided by proper diet and exercise.

I do find it unfortunate that the "appropriate" sizes of servings have 
increased dramatically during my lifetime. An example is that of Coca-Cola 
which has changed from a 6 oz. size to a 12 oz. size and is now moving in the 
direction of something in the range of 16 oz. And if you go to such as 
McDonald's the emphasis is on size. But, as so many want to say, "It's not my 
fault!"

-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> In article <C757FF98.4E39A%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym
> <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >  if health care is allowed to be totally unregulated --
> > free, even, from the basic monopoly and antitrust restrictions and
> > regulations imposed on virtually every other industry -- then why 
> > don't we farm out police, fire, sanitation, etc. to the private sector?
> 
> Regulating it presents another huge problem.
> 
> We could easily make health care much worse by
> picking the wrong people to regulate it.
> 
> What is your suggestion for that gnarly problem?
> 
> Mark-

Regulated socialised healthcare works well enough (and certainly better
than the US system for the middleclass and below) in plenty of other
parts of the world. Maybe you just need better policians?
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article <CNOdnfEyRrw91K7WnZ2dnUVZ_s5i4p2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-75F98B.18412024122009@news.albasani.net>,
>  dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > Because if you are thinking the genetic factor is significant, this puts 
> > pressure on the folks with it to exercise *more control* than those 
> > without the genetic factor. Food is a big part of normal daily living 
> > and pleasure (it is not really something extra to life). You cannot at 
> > the same time be comfortable about the control while being impressed by 
> > the genetics. It is a logical matter.
> 
>      I see no problem with the logic. 

I can see! But I recommend you try harder and I will help if I can think 
of a better way of explaining it.

> The hardness of the control is 
> beside the point, it is the that it CAN be done. 

Gee, my point is that this has *everything* to do with the point!

> Heck I have that 
> problem being a yo-yo dieter. When people ask me how much I have lost, 
> it is probably 900 or more pounds. But the fact remains that the upward 
> yo is ALWAYS accompanied by my actions of starting to graze again, 
> deciding I can't get around to exercising, etc. 
>
 
Your experience is pretty common and it is a tough battle. I know from 
my own case that even cutting down on chocolate and cheese and forking 
out for special types of margerines (to keep cholesterol count down) is 
hard! I can imagine how hard it must be to limit one's food intake. I've 
been lucky in having none of the genetic predispositions to put on 
weight that are being searched for and discovered these days. 

The standout feature of those with the disposition(s) is that dieting is 
very hard to maintain, good efforts achieve but the weight is easily put 
back on. I have heard the playing field can be levelled by stomach 
banding. If I was not able to maintain my svelte loveliness, that is 
what I would have done... Maybe! <g>

> >  
> > > There is a genetic component to alcoholism and yet the 
> > > indulging part is under the person's control. VERY hard to control, but 
> > > under the control none the less. 

Imagine a chariot race, one set of horses being VERY difficult to 
control, the other not. The way some people might talk is that there is 
no fundamental problem with the race because at least the horses *are* 
controllable. You can keep on saying how controllable the difficult 
horses are as much as you like. But it does not make the race fair, you 
have no intellectual right to be shrugging your shoulders.

-- 
dorayme

In article <m2tyvglhtf.fsf@revier.com>, Jochem Huhmann <joh@gmx.net> 
wrote:

> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> writes:
> 
> > The main point is that people with genetic factors to obesity need much 
> > more self control. So telling them to exercise it is to tell them to do 
> > something that is the more difficult, the more the genetic factor is 
> > big. There is a link and a tension here. 
> 
> Of course they need more self control because eating and consuming is
> more important to them than doing and moving. 

You go wrong immediately with the unsaid implication that it is less 
important to them than anyone else. 

> Restricting that is like
> trying not to breathe then. What you have to tell them is not "eat
> less" but "do other things that make you feel satisfied and in control".
> 

This is incredibly naive! It is more complex than this. Think two 
equally strong men, one with a 50kg ball chained to his leg, and they 
set off on a journey. Now, make one of your cute speeches of advice to 
the poor guy with the chain. Keep out of his arm's reach! <g> 

> >> I think a real genetic factor would be if it would lead to people eating
> >> and move around as much as others and still gain much more weight.
> >> 
> >
> > That is not the crucial test, it is a simple fact that by and large, if 
> > people of the same weight eat exactly the same and exercise exactly the 
> > same, they will differ not that much. There are probably interesting 
> > differences but they would not be gross.
> 
> OK, you agree then that what this genetic factor does is not to directly
> cause overweight but to cause enjoy eating too much and enjoy moving too
> less 

I agree to no such thing Jochem! You misunderstand the situation from 
beginning to end. People with certain genetic dispositions simply do not 
feel satisfied as early as "normal" people.

> 
> Happy holidays, by the way.
> 
> 
 
And you too! Easy on the Xmas pudding! <g>

-- 
dorayme

In article <241220090718227042%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> A top-of-the-line   _unregulated_   blood lab would have 
> spotted your rare blood type.

So would a top of the line government owned one. What is your point?

-- 
dorayme

In article <0001HW.C7590826002CF88FB01029BF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:15:27 -0600, dorayme wrote
> (in article <doraymeRidThis-B80A0B.16152724122009@news.albasani.net>):
> 
> [continuing in the discussion in this thread regarding obesity]
> 
> > It is hard to know what you are thinking of as big or small factor. It 
> > is a big factor as far as I can tell from the science known and 
> > indicated strongly. So I will tell you what I mean by big. If millions 
> > of people have ample opportunity to eat as much as they like and all 
> > have equal opportunity to exercise and the millions that do grow really 
> > fat almost overwhelmingly have a genetic factor that the millions who 
> > don't lack, then it is a big factor...
> 
> Given that the percentage of those with a "genetic propensity for obesity" is 
> small I wouldn't consider that to be a "big" factor in regards to the massive 
> increase in obesity, especially that here in the United States. And, I'm one 
> who is willing to state that for the majority of the population obesity is 
> something that can be avoided by proper diet and exercise.
> 
> I do find it unfortunate that the "appropriate" sizes of servings have 
> increased dramatically during my lifetime. An example is that of Coca-Cola 
> which has changed from a 6 oz. size to a 12 oz. size and is now moving in the 
> direction of something in the range of 16 oz. And if you go to such as 
> McDonald's the emphasis is on size. But, as so many want to say, "It's not my 
> fault!"

I was talking the obesity largely influenced by genetics. You seem to be 
talking human beings generally. We all are prone to get fatter if we 
have bad diets and exercise less.

-- 
dorayme

In article <doraymeRidThis-BFB5BD.08185825122009@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> > Restricting that is like
> > trying not to breathe then. What you have to tell them is not "eat
> > less" but "do other things that make you feel satisfied and in control".
> > 
> 
> This is incredibly naive! It is more complex than this. Think two 
> equally strong men, one with a 50kg ball chained to his leg, and they 
> set off on a journey. Now, make one of your cute speeches of advice to 
> the poor guy with the chain. Keep out of his arm's reach! <g> 
> 

   Of course in this scenario, the guy with the 50kg ball has the key to 
the chain. It is not in a very convenient place, but there none the less.

> > Happy holidays, by the way.
> > 
> > 
>  
> And you too! Easy on the Xmas pudding! <g>

  You, too. Both of you.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <2uadnbSdqvhTf67WnZ2dnUVZ_sdi4p2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-BFB5BD.08185825122009@news.albasani.net>,
>  dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > > Restricting that is like
> > > trying not to breathe then. What you have to tell them is not "eat
> > > less" but "do other things that make you feel satisfied and in control".
> > > 
> > 
> > This is incredibly naive! It is more complex than this. Think two 
> > equally strong men, one with a 50kg ball chained to his leg, and they 
> > set off on a journey. Now, make one of your cute speeches of advice to 
> > the poor guy with the chain. Keep out of his arm's reach! <g> 
> > 
> 
>    Of course in this scenario, the guy with the 50kg ball has the key to 
> the chain. It is not in a very convenient place, but there none the less.

So, while he is trying to get it, where do think the guy without the 
chain will be? (Hint: he might be finished the journey!)

-- 
dorayme

In article <IZOdnSWtNucCi67WnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4p2d@earthlink.com>,
 26 <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> > TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Given that whether or not one is 
> > > obese is something almost completely under control of the individual
> > 
> > Care to back that up with scientific evidence? Because there's a lot of 
> > evidence for the opposite proposition.
> 
>    Haven't seen anything yet that says genetics requires one to over eat 
> and/or not exercise. There is plenty of genetic (and evolutionary for 
> that matter) evidence that the tendency toward obesity may be related in 
> that they might process store excess nutrition differently. But nothing 
> I have seen indicates that there is a genetic imperative to shovel 
> supersized Happy meals down one's throat instead of fruits and 
> vegetables.

I believe that's called "confirmation bias."

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would
have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His
existence. (Bertrand Russell)

In article 241220090718227042%aeiou@mostly.invalid, Mark Conrad at
aeiou@mostly.invalid wrote on 12/24/09 10:18 AM:

> In article <C7588BF6.4E3EC%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym
> <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> We could easily make health care much worse by
>>> picking the wrong people to regulate it.
>> 
>> What??
> 
> Wadda ya mean  "What??"  - - - you really want

> stupid politicians

(Repetitive statement.)

> screwing with  _your_  health care?
>

No...no more than I want the stupid bean counters to be allowed to continue
to "screw with _my_ health care."


> 
>> Level the freakin' playing field: Require the Industry to
>> abide by the same rules and regulations that virtually
>> every other industry in this country is subject to.
> 
> R-i-g-h-t   - Pretend health care regulation is as
> simple as regulating interstate truck traffic. <sheesh>
> 

That's _your_ (and -- coincidentally -- the insurance companies') pretense,
not mine. 


> 
> 
>> ...remove the "antitrust exemption"...
> 
> Now that might help,

Might help? "Competition" -- that cornerstone of our supposed free-market
economic system -- _might_ help?


> provided it is judiciously applied.

"Judicious competition"...I'll have to look that up. ;P

Look, right now I have absolutely no real choice when it comes to my
health-care insurance. Years ago, before the Industry got "special
dispensation," I had several choices; didn't have to take out a second
mortgage to pay increasing premiums (health-care premiums do indeed rival
mortgage payments) for _shrinking_ coverage; nor fear that my policy might
not be renewed and I'd find myself "uninsurable" next year for a condition I
developed this year. A little competition -- that "free market" economics
stuff that the right wingnuts seem to claim stewardship of (including the
God-given right to interpret what the hell it means and when and where it
applies), to suit their (or their corporate sponsors') agenda, certainly
wouldn't hurt.

 
> There are thousands of different support industries
> associated with health care.  I kinda agree that no one blood
> analysis laboratory should be allowed to corner the market
> nationwide.
> 
> ...but by the same token, assume that   _you_   need to have
> 
> surgery, and during that surgery someone does the usual thing
> and dumps type "O" blood into you, they even get the
> "Rhesus factor" of your blood correct.
> 
> You are home free, right?  You survive the surgery and start
> mending - - - then a few weeks later you die!
> 
> Why? - Because your fly-by-night competitive "regulated"
> blood lab did not check you for rare blood types, and you
> have the rare "Bombay phenotype"  type of blood.
> (there are about 200 rare blood types)
> 

Ah! I see. Competition inevitably leads to "lowest-bidder-offering-poorest-
quality-always-wins" economics. Sort of like allowing a government-sponsored
insurance alternative, to stimulate competition and provide consumers some
choice, will lead to Death Panels, right?


>    -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hh_antigen_system
> 
> The rare individuals with Bombay phenotype do not express H substance
> on their red blood cells and therefore do not bind A or B antigens.
> Instead, they produce antibodies to H substance (which is present on
> all red cells except those of hh phenotype) as well as to both A and B
> antigens and are therefore compatible only with other hh donors.
> 
> Individuals with Bombay phenotype blood groups can only be transfused
> with blood from other Bombay phenotype individuals. Given that this
> condition is very rare to begin with, any person with this blood group,
> who needs an urgent blood transfusion, may be simply out of luck, as it
> would be quite unlikely that any blood bank would have any in stock.
>    -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> 
> You are dead because your  f******   ignorant politicians were
> screwing around trying to regulate health care in the same way
> that they regulate the trucking industry.

Nah...I'm dead because I could no longer afford to pay my premiums and/or I
reached my shrinking lifetime insurance cap and/or my coverage was not
renewed after I contracted [insert your expensive-to-treat-serious-
chronic-disease of choice here].


> A top-of-the-line   _unregulated_   blood lab would have
> spotted your rare blood type.

Back to the "lowest-bidder/poorest quality" model, huh?
 

> In this case I am all for monopoly, screw antitrust, I want
> competent health care, not Walmart health care.
> 

The more you talk, the more you sound like a shill for AHIP.


-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

In article 1jb9r7q.1umqv705htzn8N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn
Genet at jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/24/09 1:28 PM:

> Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> In article <C757FF98.4E39A%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym
>> <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>  if health care is allowed to be totally unregulated --
>>> free, even, from the basic monopoly and antitrust restrictions and
>>> regulations imposed on virtually every other industry -- then why
>>> don't we farm out police, fire, sanitation, etc. to the private sector?
>> 
>> Regulating it presents another huge problem.
>> 
>> We could easily make health care much worse by
>> picking the wrong people to regulate it.
>> 
>> What is your suggestion for that gnarly problem?
>> 
>> Mark-
> 
> Regulated socialised

Ooooohhh....you said the "S" word! You must be a left-wing commie
sympathizer.

> healthcare works well enough (and certainly better
> than the US system for the middleclass and below) in plenty of other
> parts of the world. Maybe you just need better policians?

Not only the Polish politicians..._all_ of them! ;)

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

In article doraymeRidThis-9F6557.08211025122009@news.albasani.net, dorayme
at doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au wrote on 12/24/09 4:21 PM:

> In article <241220090718227042%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
>  Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> A top-of-the-line   _unregulated_   blood lab would have
>> spotted your rare blood type.
> 
> So would a top of the line government owned one. What is your point?



Well, "top of the line" and "government owned" _might_ be oxymoronic. ("Top
of the line" and "government operated" likely _would_ be.)

Change "owned" to "sponsored," and you've got something. :)


-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:25:17 -0600, dorayme wrote
(in article <doraymeRidThis-4C8DD3.08251725122009@news.albasani.net>):

[commenting in response to my prior postings in this thread where I commented 
on the increase in obesity in recent years]

> I was talking the obesity largely influenced by genetics. You seem to be 
> talking human beings generally. We all are prone to get fatter if we 
> have bad diets and exercise less.

Methinks in terms of that statement that we are pretty much in agreement.


As an aside, today, December 24, I celebrated my 75th birthday, feeling good 
that at 5'10" my weight is at 160 lbs. I do watch my diet and try to get in 
about an hours walking each day.

-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

In article <doraymeRidThis-9F6557.08211025122009@news.albasani.net>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> > A top-of-the-line   _unregulated_   blood lab would have 
> > spotted your rare blood type.
> 
> So would a top of the line government owned one. 
> What is your point?

No it would not.  ObamaCare is all about using the
lowest cost alternative, no expensive gear to spot rare
blood types.

ObamaCare takes this to extremes, they already tried to get
political power to enforce medical decisions, taking such 
decisions out of the hands of the medical industry.

The U.S. Court of Appeals shot down the ObamaCare attempt,
saying it was an end run to violate existing law.

Now they are trying to do the same thing, wresting medical 
decisions out of the hands of medical professionals, and 
getting non-medical politicians to make important medical
decisions, by way of their 111 new political regulatory 
committees that this health bill creates.

Doctors bitching now about the two hours following their 
shift to fill out paperwork - - - wait until that bill is 
jammed down their throats and they have to spend four hours
filling out paperwork for all those new committees.

Primary health care doctors are fined 5% of their Medicare
payments if they recommend too many additional tests, such as
the tests to spot rare blood types; if they exceed the 90 percentile
figure for everyone else's "mundane medical care".

Furthermore, they may be penalized further by having to pay 
for the test, even though they merely recommended the patient
to a specialist, for the actual testing.

Put yourself in the shoes of a doctor.  Are  _you_  going to 
recommend an expensive MRI test for a patient that has a 
few symptoms of a brain aneurysm?  Hell no, not with all 
the potential penalties of ObamaCare.

You are going to let your patient die of a stroke, in order to
keep yourself in business.   Either that, or you will 
"cherry pick"  your patients to treat only those patients
who have trivial medical problems.

At the present time, patients can sue the doctor/hospital 
for lack of medical care that could have saved their life.

It is called  "malpractice".

That legal privilege will no longer be allowed when politicians are
calling the shots; retracting that legal privilege is right in the 
wording of the health bill.  Most people are not even aware that 
they will have no longer have any legal recourse.

Mark-

In article <C759A282.4E44F%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym
<nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> > You are dead because your  f******   ignorant politicians were
> > screwing around trying to regulate health care in the same way
> > that they regulate the trucking industry.
> 
> Nah...I'm dead because I could no longer afford to pay my premiums and/or I
> reached my shrinking lifetime insurance cap and/or my coverage was not
> renewed after I contracted [insert your expensive-to-treat-serious-
> chronic-disease of choice here].

That too, I agree.




> Look, right now I have absolutely no real choice when it comes to my
> health-care insurance. Years ago, before the Industry got "special
> dispensation," I had several choices; didn't have to take out a second
> mortgage to pay increasing premiums (health-care premiums do indeed
> rival
> mortgage payments) for _shrinking_ coverage; nor fear that my policy
> might
> not be renewed and I'd find myself "uninsurable" next year for a
> condition I
> developed this year. A little competition -- that "free market"
> economics
> stuff that the right wingnuts seem to claim stewardship of (including
> the
> God-given right to interpret what the hell it means and when and where
> it
> applies), to suit their (or their corporate sponsors') agenda, certainly
> wouldn't hurt.

Okay, I will agree that the right-wingnuts (of which I am one)  
sometimes go too far, but they are orders of magnitude better at
medical decisions than rabid left wing socialist politicians with 
Muslim leanings who are constantly running down our brand
of capitalist democracy to the world.

I for certain did not like the Bush stand on stem-cell research,
nor do I like the Right Wing rabid types denying global warming,
even though I am a dues-paying member of the Rush Limbaugh 
for president movement.   ;-)    ;-)    ;-)



> > Why? - Because your fly-by-night competitive "regulated"
> > blood lab did not check you for rare blood types, and you
> > have the rare "Bombay phenotype"  type of blood.
> > (there are about 200 rare blood types)
> > 
> 
> Ah! I see. Competition inevitably leads to
> "lowest-bidder-offering-poorest-
> quality-always-wins" economics.

Right on, I have you pegged as a closet right-wingnut.

....but then, I am a closet left-wingnut, go figure.



> Sort of like allowing a government-sponsored insurance 
> alternative, to stimulate competition and provide consumers
> some choice, will lead to Death Panels, right?

Right on again, you frighten me.


What  _really_  frightens me is that once we go down the 
socialist path, we will no longed have the power to return
to a capitalistic democracy, as per one of the definitions 
in my Mac dictionary:

   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   
"socialism -  (in Marxist theory) a transitional social
state between the overthrow of capitalism and the 
realization of communism."

"The term "socialism" has been used to describe 
positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state 
communism, and social democracy; however, it 
necessarily implies an opposition to the 
untrammeled workings of the economic market."
   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   

Do we really want to abandon our capitalist 
democracy which has led to our high standard 
of living, and go down the path of a so-called
"social democracy" like most Europeans have?

State dictated health care is certainly the first step 
towards a socialist system, so we had better well 
decide exactly what we want before we take that step.

Mark-

On Dec 23, 4:15=A0pm, Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>
wrote:
> In article doraymeRidThis-463A0D.08262823122...@news.albasani.net, doraym=
e
> at doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 12/22/09 4:26 PM:
>
> > In article <C7567ACB.4E2A5%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> > =A0Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> In article 1jb5z8i.xpzdav1h9l87hN%jami...@wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Ka=
hn
> >> Genet at jami...@wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/22/09 12:29 PM:
>
> >> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare.
>
> > What about sheep?
>
> You should be the Aussie poster boy for needed improvements in that
> country's mental-health treatment and delivery system.
>

At least the sheep owners still expect to pay their bills with cash
and not stiff the healthcare providers.
Linda H.

On Dec 24, 3:13=A0am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> That is not the crucial test, it is a simple fact that by and large, if
> people of the same weight eat exactly the same and exercise exactly the
> same, they will differ not that much. There are probably interesting
> differences but they would not be gross.
>
> --
> dorayme

Your statement,above, needs to be conrolled for gender.  Males, with
30% more muscle mass, can and will lose weight much more efficiently
than females.

Linda H.

In article <C759A282.4E44F%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
 Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > screwing with  _your_  health care?
> >
> 
> No...no more than I want the stupid bean counters to be allowed to continue
> to "screw with _my_ health care."
> 
    You know at all levels this exchange pretty much boils the essence 
of the debate. Interesting that nobody is suggesting maybe we should 
just screw with our own health care. 
> 

> Might help? "Competition" -- that cornerstone of our supposed free-market
> economic system -- _might_ help?
> 
> 
> > provided it is judiciously applied.
> 
> "Judicious competition"...I'll have to look that up. ;P
    
   Me too. 

> 
> Look, right now I have absolutely no real choice when it comes to my
> health-care insurance. Years ago, before the Industry got "special
> dispensation," I had several choices; didn't have to take out a second
> mortgage to pay increasing premiums (health-care premiums do indeed rival
> mortgage payments) for _shrinking_ coverage; nor fear that my policy might
> not be renewed and I'd find myself "uninsurable" next year for a condition I
> developed this year. A little competition -- that "free market" economics
> stuff that the right wingnuts seem to claim stewardship of (including the
> God-given right to interpret what the hell it means and when and where it
> applies), to suit their (or their corporate sponsors') agenda, certainly
> wouldn't hurt.

  You really haven't had any choice at all unless you were involved 
prior to WWII when Congress bought off a workforce getting more and more 
restive by deciding that employer-sponsored healthcare was not REALLY a 
violation of the wage freezes in at the time and (concurently) gave only 
the employers the tax write off. From that day forward essentially the 
only HC choices you had were those offered by the employer.
    BTW: That was also the last time you were the insurance company's 
primary customer. It is has always been since then that the employer 
pays the bills and thus is the main concern of the insurance company. 
(When viewed in that light, pretty much all of the things the IC does 
makes more sense since the goal of the actual customer over the last few 
years has been to keep THEIR costs lower)
    Add in Mcare (not for socialized medicine concerns, but because it 
essentially put a floor under insurance benefits), bad decisions on the 
part of employers during the 70s when it was actually cheaper to add 
insurance benefits than wages for awhile, the rise in the subsidies for 
healthcare that resulted from this (in 1960 we paid around 50% of all of 
the healthcare expenses out of our own pockets, as of 2005 or so, it was 
down to less than 12%. When something is subsidized to that extent, 
people will over consume especially if not is viewed as leaving some of 
the employees wage on the table), the fact that many of the current 
benefits are such that it really isn't insurance any more and hasn't 
been since the days of the old major medical (insurance is usually 
defined as taking a small but expensive risk and spreading it around 
more people. Appendectomy qualifies, going to see the doc for a sore 
throat shouldn't), changes in treatment that aren't reflected in either 
delivery or payment systems (we have gone from a relatively inexpensive 
acute system where they either got better or died, did both quickly, and 
then were no longer costing the health care system) to a very expensive 
chronic system-- my favorite example being "blue babies" that before the 
advent of teflon patch would die within hours or days but who now 
probably will be living full lifetimes seeing the doctor).
    Anyway, there are many reasons for the current HC mess, few of them 
are being addressed in the current bill, and some are actually going to 
be made worse. Buckle up.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <241220092129276759%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:


> Now they are trying to do the same thing, wresting medical 
> decisions out of the hands of medical professionals, and 
> getting non-medical politicians to make important medical
> decisions, by way of their 111 new political regulatory 
> committees that this health bill creates.
  These decisions have NEVER been in the hands of medical professionals 
in that respect. Insurance companies have since their creation always 
decided what they would and would not pay for. 
      However, it should also be noted that most of the decisions are 
made by MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS employed by the insurance companies... or 
Medicare for that matter. 

> Put yourself in the shoes of a doctor.  Are  _you_  going to 
> recommend an expensive MRI test for a patient that has a 
> few symptoms of a brain aneurysm?  Hell no, not with all 
> the potential penalties of ObamaCare.

   Of course, there are about no studies showing this to be cost or 
treatment effective, unless there is a very specific pattern of 
symptoms. One of the biggest debates in the medical field is overuse of 
tests and the unintended consequences thereof. For example, how many 
excess cancers related to radiation dose may we be triggering with 
yearly mammograms compared to those that we catch? 
   

> 
> You are going to let your patient die of a stroke, in order to
> keep yourself in business.   Either that, or you will 
> "cherry pick"  your patients to treat only those patients
> who have trivial medical problems.

   We are already seeing this in MCare. 

> 
> At the present time, patients can sue the doctor/hospital 
> for lack of medical care that could have saved their life.
> 
> It is called  "malpractice".
  Which is why, without tort reform, you aren't gonna see many changes 
in over testing


> 
> That legal privilege will no longer be allowed when politicians are
> calling the shots; retracting that legal privilege is right in the 
> wording of the health bill.  Most people are not even aware that 
> they will have no longer have any legal recourse.
> 
      Find that for me, please. Tort reform would have made the Trial 
Lawyers come unglued and they are as much Mother's Milk to the Dems as 
Big Business is to the GOP.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:33:15 -0800, Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid>
wrote:

>What  _really_  frightens me is that once we go down the 
>socialist path, we will no longed have the power to return
>to a capitalistic democracy, as per one of the definitions 
>in my Mac dictionary:

Of course, *every* state is to some extent or another "down the
socialist path".

And the type of socialism run by insurance companies, even before they
got subsidized by being pre-tax & company plans (business being the
primary customers, not us) - is still socialistic.     We don't make
our decisions ourselves.     It isn't even used primarily as
insurance, to pay for disasters, it's used to pay for our everyday
medical care, except with far more paperwork, and with far less
control by us.

And the medical industry has made sure it doesn't change much - if you
want to see who our politicians are working for, follow the money.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

Linda Hungerford wrote:
> On Dec 24, 3:13 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> That is not the crucial test, it is a simple fact that by and large, if
>> people of the same weight eat exactly the same and exercise exactly the
>> same, they will differ not that much. There are probably interesting
>> differences but they would not be gross.
> 
> Your statement,above, needs to be conrolled for gender.  Males, with
> 30% more muscle mass, can and will lose weight much more efficiently
> than females.

But in the long run, after 'equilibrium' is reached, eating exactly the 
same and exercising exactly the same will maintain almost the same body 
weight, absent rare genetic or environmental interference.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   achy breaky grammar
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=229

In article <241220092233156424%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> What  _really_  frightens me is that once we go down the 
> socialist path, we will no longed have the power to return
> to a capitalistic democracy, as per one of the definitions 
> in my Mac dictionary:

Despite what your right-wing politicians tell you, the Canadian health 
care system just works; it's just there. I'll never lose my house or my 
health care no matter how sick I get, and I don't have to "shop around" 
for "coverage" and one of the best hospitals in the world is about 30 
miles from where I live and no one is ever "refused" health care and my 
family doctor sees me within minimally 48 hours and sometimes the same 
day.

So, we have pretty decent government-mandated health care in Canada, 
Mark, and we're pretty much a capitalist society. Oh, well, we have no 
2nd Amendment, sorry about that, even though our current drunken redneck 
jesus-freak prime minister would love to insert one into our 
constitution. 

We get more statutory holidays. Like Boxing Day. 

Merry Christmas, Mark.
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

Kurt Ullman wrote:
>     You know at all levels this exchange pretty much boils the essence 
> of the debate. Interesting that nobody is suggesting maybe we should 
> just screw with our own health care. 

You obviously don't visit alt.support.diabetes often.

>     BTW: That was also the last time you were the insurance company's 
> primary customer. It is has always been since then that the employer 
> pays the bills and thus is the main concern of the insurance company. 
> (When viewed in that light, pretty much all of the things the IC does 
> makes more sense since the goal of the actual customer over the last few 
> years has been to keep THEIR costs lower)

And yet, the fact that the payer gets money both from the employer
and from you, means the total cost can creep up even more--making
it very hard for you to buy individual coverage.  My wife had breast 
cancer (surgery, radiation, chemo) and I had diabetes.  Yet the
COBRA package we were offered cost about as much as the payer had
paid out for all that treatment.  Either they were basing the cost
on our medical history, or they are making a dozen fortunes on
healthy people.

>     Add in Mcare (not for socialized medicine concerns, but because it 
> essentially put a floor under insurance benefits), ...

Not 100% sure what you mean.  Medicare keeps other payers from
paying less than Medicare?

I work for a non-profit healthcare system.  If we had _only_
Medicare and Medicaid patients, we would be in the red and
eventually cease to exist.  As much as we decry the stinginess
and sometimes worse of the commercial outfits, they do pay
on the average enough over our costs to allow us to write-off
a lot of treatments for the uninsured.

We worry that a "public option" would pay like Medicare,
and that usage of it would gradually grow until non-profit
providers are in trouble and for-profits are for sale.

Another side of government-run healthcare:
I also used Veteran's Administration health care while
uninsured.  As a taxpayer, I am appalled at the amount of
money we are spending to treat complications _caused_by_
the bad advice and bad treatment given there.  When my V.A.
doctor prescribed once-a-week blood sugar testing, the
pharmacist changed it because "that was not the policy"
for my condition.  When I cited the 2003 guidelines
from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists
in support of my request for better thyroid treatment, I was
also quoted the "policy."  When I stopped in there one evening
with chest pain, the doctor, after a five-minute interview
with NO TESTING said it's not cardiac and gave me tranquilizers.
(Standard procedure most places for chest pain is to take no
chances--immediate troponin, EKG, maybe nitro.)  Fortunately,
it was not cardiac, but guessing that was stupid, especially
for a known diabetic.

An interesting thing about Medicare is the fee schedules.
Most services, we get the scheduled payment of WAY below
what we bill.  But once in a while, a particular procedure
that really doesn't cost much is on the schedule for a lot
more than we bill--and they pay what's on the schedule,
even when the bill is less.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Carlos Santana’s Solution to Drug and Education Problems
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1539

In article <hh2ksd$uqt$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> Kurt Ullman wrote:
> >     You know at all levels this exchange pretty much boils the essence 
> > of the debate. Interesting that nobody is suggesting maybe we should 
> > just screw with our own health care. 
> 
> You obviously don't visit alt.support.diabetes often.
> 
     Okay, nobody in Congress with any power has actually....


> >     BTW: That was also the last time you were the insurance company's 
> > primary customer. It is has always been since then that the employer 
> > pays the bills and thus is the main concern of the insurance company. 
> > (When viewed in that light, pretty much all of the things the IC does 
> > makes more sense since the goal of the actual customer over the last few 
> > years has been to keep THEIR costs lower)
> 
> And yet, the fact that the payer gets money both from the employer
> and from you, means the total cost can creep up even more--making
> it very hard for you to buy individual coverage.  My wife had breast 
> cancer (surgery, radiation, chemo) and I had diabetes.  Yet the
> COBRA package we were offered cost about as much as the payer had
> paid out for all that treatment.  Either they were basing the cost
> on our medical history, or they are making a dozen fortunes on
> healthy people.
  Or the 20% who are using 80% of the resources are hard to cover. I had 
always thought that the best idea was to get an FDIC-like reinsurance 
plan for healthcare to take care of everyone above a certain cut off. 
Spread the costs of these outliers across a much larger group than would 
be available otherwise. There are years and years of studies showing the 
impact of just one expensive person on the costs of premiums, even among 
the big Union-Big Biz contracts. 


> 
> >     Add in Mcare (not for socialized medicine concerns, but because it 
> > essentially put a floor under insurance benefits), ...
> 
> Not 100% sure what you mean.  Medicare keeps other payers from
> paying less than Medicare?
    Yeah essentially. Who is going to agree to a package less then 
MCare, especially among the big employers/unions. These in turn, are 
what the smaller companies want so they can successful compete for 
workers. 


> 
> I work for a non-profit healthcare system.  If we had _only_
> Medicare and Medicaid patients, we would be in the red and
> eventually cease to exist.  As much as we decry the stinginess
> and sometimes worse of the commercial outfits, they do pay
> on the average enough over our costs to allow us to write-off
> a lot of treatments for the uninsured.
 Yep. Overall the Evil and Mean Insurance companies pay $1 for 
comparable procedures where MCare pays ~60 Cents and MCaid even less. 
Because the Feds are a monopsony (the buyers equivalent of buyer's 
monopoly). The original House measure required the government option to 
use the imposed, not negotiated, MCare payment system. No other entity 
would have been able to compete with that difference in payments.
    BTW: More and more docs are refusing MCare patients. 

> 
> We worry that a "public option" would pay like Medicare,
> and that usage of it would gradually grow until non-profit
> providers are in trouble and for-profits are for sale.
    Pretty much a given. I always thought that was a back door way to 
single-payor by making sure no one else was still in existence.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <0093127c$0$8156$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Despite what your right-wing politicians tell you, the Canadian health 
> care system just works; it's just there. I'll never lose my house or my 
> health care no matter how sick I get, and I don't have to "shop around" 
> for "coverage" and one of the best hospitals in the world is about 30 
> miles from where I live and no one is ever "refused" health care and my 
> family doctor sees me within minimally 48 hours and sometimes the same 
> day.
> 

 Yep except for chronic long waiting times, chronic underfunding of 
capital projects, chronic lag times in adopting new technologies. And 
lets not forget that there is no such thing as a Canadian Healthcare 
system per se since there are large differences in funding levels 
between the various provinces. Lets also not forget about 5 years where 
all 7500 nurses in one resigned at the same time to protest wages they 
were offered. 
     You also see such problems in the British government system.  If 
you look at the polls, in the US, the number of people happy with THEIR 
insurance runs about 80%. However much less about the system in general. 
Sorta interesting that these numbers are pretty much in line with 
polling that shows little support for Congress, but much higher support 
for their personal CongressCritter. I am trying to figure out the 
importance of that congruence (g).

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <0093127c$0$8156$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
>  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Despite what your right-wing politicians tell you, the Canadian health
> > care system just works; it's just there. I'll never lose my house or my
> > health care no matter how sick I get, and I don't have to "shop around"
> > for "coverage" and one of the best hospitals in the world is about 30
> > miles from where I live and no one is ever "refused" health care and my
> > family doctor sees me within minimally 48 hours and sometimes the same
> > day.
> > 
> 
>  Yep except for chronic long waiting times, chronic underfunding of 
> capital projects, chronic lag times in adopting new technologies. And
> lets not forget that there is no such thing as a Canadian Healthcare 
> system per se since there are large differences in funding levels 
> between the various provinces. Lets also not forget about 5 years where
> all 7500 nurses in one resigned at the same time to protest wages they
> were offered. 
>      You also see such problems in the British government system.  If
> you look at the polls, in the US, the number of people happy with THEIR
> insurance runs about 80%. However much less about the system in general.
> Sorta interesting that these numbers are pretty much in line with 
> polling that shows little support for Congress, but much higher support
> for their personal CongressCritter. I am trying to figure out the 
> importance of that congruence (g).

I'd still take all the waiting lists and other issues of an underfunded
socialised health system any day. I'm covered, no matter what (rich,
poor, retired, unemployed - it doesn't matter a damn), and I've always
the option to buy private health insurance (though I don't think I know
anyone who has) if I want to avoid waiting for non-life threatening
operations, for example.

In the US medical debt is the principal cause of personal bankruptcy,
and an estimated 40,000 people die every year from lack of health
insurance (and about 100,000 per year from lack of healthcare,
regardless of their insurance status). I really don't know how anyone
can defend that. You're the only industrialised country that is so
callous about it's fellow citizens, it allows them to lose everything if
they cannot afford to pay - even their lives.

-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article <0001HW.C759A7A8001B5A44B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:25:17 -0600, dorayme wrote
> (in article <doraymeRidThis-4C8DD3.08251725122009@news.albasani.net>):
> 
> [commenting in response to my prior postings in this thread where I commented 
> on the increase in obesity in recent years]
> 
> > I was talking the obesity largely influenced by genetics. You seem to be 
> > talking human beings generally. We all are prone to get fatter if we 
> > have bad diets and exercise less.
> 
> Methinks in terms of that statement that we are pretty much in agreement.
>

Perhaps so.

> 
> As an aside, today, December 24, I celebrated my 75th birthday, feeling good 
> that at 5'10" my weight is at 160 lbs. I do watch my diet and try to get in 
> about an hours walking each day.

Bless you!

-- 
dorayme

In article <241220092129276759%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-9F6557.08211025122009@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > > A top-of-the-line   _unregulated_   blood lab would have 
> > > spotted your rare blood type.
> > 
> > So would a top of the line government owned one. 
> > What is your point?
> 
> No it would not.  ObamaCare is all about using the
> lowest cost alternative, no expensive gear to spot rare
> blood types.
> 
....

I was imagining things in principle and not from an American political 
point of view. 

I am sorry so many millions of your poorer citizens get such a lousy 
deal at the moment and that someone who is trying desperately to do 
something about it is being torn to shreds and hampered in his every 
effort before he can get anything at all going.

What I know about the American system is summed up in the film, 'As Good 
As It Gets'. 

It is frightening that there are pressures to go the same way over here.

-- 
dorayme

In article <241220092233156424%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> Do we really want to abandon our capitalist 
> democracy which has led to our high standard 
> of living

for whom?

-- 
dorayme

In article 
<9a8bbb7a-488f-4ce2-9fcb-32e05741f9d4@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
 Linda Hungerford <tallgrassprairie@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Dec 24, 3:13 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > That is not the crucial test, it is a simple fact that by and large, if
> > people of the same weight eat exactly the same and exercise exactly the
> > same, they will differ not that much. There are probably interesting
> > differences but they would not be gross.
> >
> > --
> > dorayme
> 
> Your statement,above, needs to be conrolled for gender.  Males, with
> 30% more muscle mass, can and will lose weight much more efficiently
> than females.
> 
 
Let me propose something even more general:

"by and large, if animals of the same weight eat exactly the same and 
exercise exactly the same, they will differ not that much. There are 
probably interesting differences but they would not be gross." 

Physics and the laws of thermodynamics do not stop to discriminate.

-- 
dorayme

jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) writes:

> I'd still take all the waiting lists and other issues of an underfunded
> socialised health system any day. I'm covered, no matter what (rich,
> poor, retired, unemployed - it doesn't matter a damn), and I've always
> the option to buy private health insurance (though I don't think I know
> anyone who has) if I want to avoid waiting for non-life threatening
> operations, for example.

Additionally at least here in Germany the waiting lists factor is
somewhat overrated. Yes, if you want the top-notch hospital or the
doctor with the hot blondes at the reception desk and with all the
marble around the staircase you will have to wait a long time. These are
profit-maximizing and reserve their time slots for those with private
health insurance while keeping the others at bay. But call around a bit
or go to the doc around the corner and you will find that most of them
care a shit for how you're insured. Ask them about this and they will
tell you that someone insisting in "better" service because he has
private insurance will happily be sent through a series of expensive and
useless diagnostics which won't change a bit about his/her health.

There have been surveys here and the outcome is clear: If you've got
private insurance or not does not change a bit for the outcome. Survival
rates and health status are just the same. You get more comfort and
better (non-medical) services and often totally useless diagnostics and
the impression that *everything* is done, useful or not, but it's
basically a feel-good thing.


        Jochem

-- 
 "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no 
 longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
 - Antoine de Saint-Exupery 

dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> writes:

> Let me propose something even more general:
>
> "by and large, if animals of the same weight eat exactly the same and 
> exercise exactly the same, they will differ not that much. There are 
> probably interesting differences but they would not be gross." 

OK, but doesn't this still mean that genetic factors do not cause
overweight as such but rather habits or preferences that *lead* to being
overweight? Like eating too much and moving not enough?

I still think that, while it may not help you and me as individuals,
this is to a large part a cultural problem. Evolutionary we're wired to
consume if we can and to slack down if we can. This was for a very long
time no problem because circumstances in which we could consume and be
lazy were rare enough that we had to wallow in them as best as we could
to survive the lean and busy times (which were much more common). 

Now things have changed, though. Capitalism *depends* on people
consuming as much as possible and encourages them to do so. Being
comfortable is also encouraged, since it means cars and gas and power
tools and delivery services and generally products and services being
sold. Additionally people tend to be powerless and feel they're
depending on a huge system in which they're only a small cog. Being the
master of your life and a self-sufficient person is not the rule, it's
the exception. More and more people feel powerless and totally incapable
to change things and to look out at the world as a thing to act on and
to walk out to and to conquer. Instead they look at the world as a thing
to consume and to be catered by. This leads to them eating and drinking
too much and to be driven and to be served. This is very much like being
addicted to some drug.

Have you seen WALL-E (the movie)? It describes this in an almost
disturbingly precise way.

I have no idea if and how this relates to christmas, but maybe it does
anyway. Luckily I have been eating not too much, because my 15 month old
niece was jumping around me, but I couldn't help thinking about how this
time of year was the last feast before hard months were coming up and
it was a feast of lights and the last perishable foodstuff being flared
off. There was a hard time looming after that. Nowadays the cold and the
darkness only leads us to eat even more because we can.


        Jochem

-- 
 "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no 
 longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
 - Antoine de Saint-Exupery 

In article <m21viiekrn.fsf@revier.com>, Jochem Huhmann <joh@gmx.net> 
wrote:

> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> writes:
> 
> > Let me propose something even more general:
> >
> > "by and large, if animals of the same weight eat exactly the same and 
> > exercise exactly the same, they will differ not that much. There are 
> > probably interesting differences but they would not be gross." 
> 
> OK, but doesn't this still mean that genetic factors do not cause
> overweight as such but rather habits or preferences that *lead* to being
> overweight? Like eating too much and moving not enough?

Genetic factors that have been proposed have rarely if ever had magical 
powers, the limit being, if you have the factors, you just put on weight 
by existing in time. The idea is often, for example, that it causes 
people to still feel hungry when normal people do not. This puts 
pressure on their abilities to say no to more food. Which is where I 
first came into this thread, we need to be careful stressing the free 
will control people have, it is not a level playing field.

-- 
dorayme

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:03:47 -0500, Red wrote:
>  Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

Any browser which does support plugins such as adblock and noscript - so
that's Firefox only.

- Martin

In article <doraymeRidThis-F04E68.08181326122009@news.albasani.net>,
dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> I am sorry so many millions of your poorer citizens 
> get such a lousy deal at the moment and that someone 
> who is trying desperately to do something about it 
> is being torn to shreds and hampered in his every 
> effort before he can get anything at all going.

Hampered?  -  seems to me he is getting everything 
his own way, his bloated health bill has passed both 
houses of congress here.



> I am sorry so many millions of your poorer citizens 
> get such a lousy deal at the moment...

I am considered a poverty case by our governments 
own standards, and I do not have any such "lousy deal"
when it comes to health care, just the opposite.

The only people who will benefit are the illegal aliens
who have no repect for the rule of law and flood our 
country, overloading our health system and our school
system and our crime-prevention system.

We have  _always_  been friendly for immigration here,
when people go in the front door and abide by our laws.

Every nation has the right to chose their own form 
of government - - - or   _should_   have that right,
unless an oppressive government takes away their 
right to choose.

If I wanted to live in a socialist nanny-state society,
I would move to a socialist country.

If   _you_   wanted rampant money-grubbing capitalism,
you would likely move to the USA.

If either one of us wanted the communist-control form of
government, we would move to China or North Korea.
(now  _those_  are two countries which 
             do not have hordes of illegal aliens 
                    trying to get into their country <g> )
        

We don't, so we are both happy  staying where we are.



> What I know about the American system is summed up 
> in the film, 'As Good As It Gets'. 
> 
> It is frightening that there are pressures 
> to go the same way over here.

That is funny <g>

I feel exactly the same way, only in reverse.   I feel that
rampant socialism is being jammed down our throats here,
whether we want it or not.

Mark-

In article <0093127c$0$8156$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates
<warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> ...my family doctor sees me within minimally 48 hours 
> and sometimes the same day.

Hope for your sake you do not get "maybe" symptoms of
a brain aneurysm that needs prompt action in less than
an hour, a burst aneurysm (stroke) is a major killer 
which will not wait for the slow nanny-state testing 
approval in your country.


> So, we have pretty decent government-mandated health care 
> in Canada, Mark ...

Here, the free market money-grubbing system is in effect,
so we save a lot of money that would otherwise be wasted on
government bureaucracy.

Although right now it looks like they are going to jam 
socialized medicine down our throats, even though 
the polls here show that 60% here do not want it.

So much for our so-called representative government
here in the USA.

Mark-

In article <1jbboso.10dcnzi11e4va1N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> In the US medical debt is the principal cause of personal bankruptcy,
> and an estimated 40,000 people die every year from lack of health
> insurance ...

Good! - If they are so stupid that they can't make 
ends meet in the USA where taxes are much lower
than in socialized countries like Canada, they deserve
to die, it will improve our gene pool here in the USA.

....or they can move to Canada and overload your 
health system.

For me, the less government control in my life,
the happier I am; I have never had much use for the 
nanny state where the fat-cat politicians attempt to 
care for stupid brain damaged people who want 
cradle to grave control of their lives by politicians.

I worked my arse off during my life, without benefit
of any pompous government nanny holding my hand.





When I was pumping iron at Gold's gym in late 1999,
it was my habit to check my blood pressure after a 
weight-lifting session.   It was 80/60     

WHAT !!! - checked it again, same result.
Damn pump was just not working.

Wandered into the local hospital emergency room, 
announced that I wanted the best medical care in the
world, took out my stop-watch and timed the critters.

No waiting in line for nanny-state medical care, they
immediately threw expensive medical tests at me.

Rushed me into surgery on the basis of those tests, 
all the while I was complaining that I felt great,
gimme an aspirin and leave me alone.

Doc' said "Shut up, I need the money".

"Okay" I said, "if you really need the money".

They did not have time to knock me out, I was fully
conscious during the operation, muttering to myself
that I was in great shape, could easily lift more than 
my body weight, do 20 one-arm chins, etc., etc.

Upshot is that they saved my life against my will, 
throwing in two stents in some 95% clogged heart 
arteries, they wanted to throw in a third stent but
that heart artery was too ulcerated to tolerate a stent.

Doc'  told me I would have been a dead man in a few days
if I had lived in Canada, I would have still been waiting
in line to get approval for those expensive tests
from my government nanny.

Anyhow, their dabbling fixed my blood pressure,
it was back to its usual  130/80  for my age 
of 69 at that time.  (am 80 now)

Mark-

In article <1jbboso.10dcnzi11e4va1N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
 jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> 
> I'd still take all the waiting lists and other issues of an underfunded
> socialised health system any day. I'm covered, no matter what (rich,
> poor, retired, unemployed - it doesn't matter a damn), and I've always
> the option to buy private health insurance (though I don't think I know
> anyone who has) if I want to avoid waiting for non-life threatening
> operations, for example.

I don't know anyone in Canada who's had to wait very long for any 
surgery; at my age people are getting new hips and new knees and 
developing respiratory problems and so on and it all seems to come 
together. In Canada, we're not allowed to have private health insurance 
for anything that's covered under the national plan (and it _is_ a 
national plan, albeit administered by the provinces) which is a bit of a 
pain in the arse for some. But everyone lives near the US border, and 
there's no law against driving to Seattle or Detroit and paying for 
medical treatment if one feels like it. Fly to the Mayo Clinic, if you'd 
like.
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

In article <261220090101539638%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> Doc'  told me I would have been a dead man in a few days
> if I had lived in Canada, I would have still been waiting
> in line to get approval for those expensive tests
> from my government nanny.

What a load of shit. If you guys get your death panels, Mark, it's guys 
like you whose names will percolate to the top.
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> In article <0093127c$0$8156$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates
> <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > ...my family doctor sees me within minimally 48 hours 
> > and sometimes the same day.
> 
> Hope for your sake you do not get "maybe" symptoms of
> a brain aneurysm that needs prompt action in less than
> an hour, a burst aneurysm (stroke) is a major killer 
> which will not wait for the slow nanny-state testing 
> approval in your country.

Rubbish - there are no waiting lists for critical and emergency cases in
Canada, the UK, NZ, etc. So long as you or a doctor catches the symptoms
and you reach a hospital in time, you'll get immediate high quality
care. It's that very immediate care of such cases that helps cause the
waiting lists for less serious procedures. What - did you think it was a
case of first come first served regardless of the ailment?

> > So, we have pretty decent government-mandated health care 
> > in Canada, Mark ...
> 
> Here, the free market money-grubbing system is in effect,
> so we save a lot of money that would otherwise be wasted on
> government bureaucracy.

Quite how you can be unaware how inefficient your health system is given
the current discussion amazes me. Yet - here we are and you remain
oblivious...

> Although right now it looks like they are going to jam 
> socialized medicine down our throats, even though 
> the polls here show that 60% here do not want it.

I wonder how many of those have any understanding of life in a society
with universal socialised health care? Colour me cynical, but I suspect
they're mostly ignorant of what it means, and/or worship the 'wild west'
(which you yanks seem to idolise) free market too much - once again
whether they have any real understanding - to countenance any real
lasting and meaningful change.

> So much for our so-called representative government
> here in the USA.
> 
> Mark-

That's what happens when you let lobby groups get control of the
government and there's finally a public backlash. But not to worry -
they're already re-exerting control and your citizens are falling back
into line. You'll run those damn bleeding heart liberals out in no time.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article <261220090101469204%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> Hope for your sake you do not get "maybe" symptoms of
> a brain aneurysm that needs prompt action in less than
> an hour, a burst aneurysm (stroke) is a major killer 
> which will not wait for the slow nanny-state testing 
> approval in your country.

You're not very bright are you? You used to evince a little more 
intelligence, couple of years ago. Been tested for dementia lately? 
You're covered, I understand.
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

In article <009453e9$0$16943$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <261220090101539638%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
>  Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Doc'  told me I would have been a dead man in a few days
> > if I had lived in Canada, I would have still been waiting
> > in line to get approval for those expensive tests
> > from my government nanny.
> 
> What a load of shit. If you guys get your death panels, Mark, it's guys 
> like you whose names will percolate to the top.

The death panels are already here. They're just run by insurance 
corporations rather than the government.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <slrnhjbgg6.67s.t-usenet@ID-685.user.individual.de>,
 Martin Trautmann <t-usenet@gmx.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:03:47 -0500, Red wrote:
> >  Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?
> 
> Any browser which does support plugins such as adblock and noscript - so
> that's Firefox only.

Safari AdBlocker: 
<http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/32851/safari-adblocker>

And there are many other Safari extensions.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <jollyroger-0C0FF0.10263526122009@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <009453e9$0$16943$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
>  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <261220090101539638%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
> >  Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> > > Doc'  told me I would have been a dead man in a few days
> > > if I had lived in Canada, I would have still been waiting
> > > in line to get approval for those expensive tests
> > > from my government nanny.
> > 
> > What a load of shit. If you guys get your death panels, Mark, it's guys 
> > like you whose names will percolate to the top.
> 
> The death panels are already here. They're just run by insurance 
> corporations rather than the government.

   Actually government has them too. Oregon MCaid, the poster child for 
a well-run rationing system, has had mechanisms in place for years that 
decide what they will pay for and when they will pay for it. So has 
MCare for that matter.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

dorayme wrote:
> Physics and the laws of thermodynamics do not stop to discriminate.

True.  Energy(stored) = Energy(in) - Energy(out)

But measurement is not as simple as the equation itself.

Energy stored is not always fat.

And energy out is a mixture of many things.

Some of it is used to make changes in the body
(including the _very_ difficult-to-measure changes
in the brain due to thinking and seeing.)

Some may be exhaled or be in sweat (if you smell
sugar or alcohol, there are calories there, however few)

A little or a lot may be excreted--when I was diagnosed
diabetic, I was pissing away over four thousand calories
per liter and losing two kilos a day.  I'll skip graphic
examples one might observe on the other end.

Some is used in movement.  And two people apparently
accomplishing the same work _might_ not be using the
same amount of energy to do it.

The proportions of all of those can be affected by
numerous factors, including genetics, stress, and
nutritional make-up of the food.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Posted Last Episodes of “Muzzy II”
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1424

Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> Rubbish - there are no waiting lists for critical and emergency cases in
> Canada, the UK, NZ, etc. So long as you or a doctor catches the symptoms
> and you reach a hospital in time, you'll get immediate high quality
> care. It's that very immediate care of such cases that helps cause the
> waiting lists for less serious procedures. What - did you think it was a
> case of first come first served regardless of the ailment?

What about the waiting times for the appointment that diagnoses
something critical where the patient had thought it was trivial?

Not that it doesn't happen in USA--I lost a pound a day for two
months before a urine test showed where it was going.  The only
reason I had the test was because it was routine when I showed up
at E.R. for something unrelated.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Common Sense
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=1184

In article <261220090101469204%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> In article <0093127c$0$8156$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates
> <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > ...my family doctor sees me within minimally 48 hours 
> > and sometimes the same day.
> 
> Hope for your sake you do not get "maybe" symptoms of
> a brain aneurysm that needs prompt action in less than
> an hour, a burst aneurysm (stroke) is a major killer 
> which will not wait for the slow nanny-state testing 
> approval in your country.
> 
> 
> > So, we have pretty decent government-mandated health care 
> > in Canada, Mark ...
> 
> Here, the free market money-grubbing system is in effect,
> so we save a lot of money that would otherwise be wasted on
> government bureaucracy.

Which, I suppose, is why the US spends almost 50% more per person on 
health care than other western countries with national health care 
systems, but still winds up at 30th+ in the world's life expectancy 
table. Well behind the same Europeans countries.

Doesn't seem to be working too well, does it?
> 
> Although right now it looks like they are going to jam 
> socialized medicine down our throats, even though 
> the polls here show that 60% here do not want it.

70%+ of the public want a public option. Same with the doctors.
> 
> So much for our so-called representative government
> here in the USA.

See above. Amazing what health care companies can buy with our dollars. 
isn't it?

In article <261220090101408857%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-F04E68.08181326122009@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > I am sorry so many millions of your poorer citizens 
> > get such a lousy deal at the moment and that someone 
> > who is trying desperately to do something about it 
> > is being torn to shreds and hampered in his every 
> > effort before he can get anything at all going.
> 
> Hampered?  -  seems to me he is getting everything 
> his own way, his bloated health bill has passed both 
> houses of congress here.
> 
> 
> 
> > I am sorry so many millions of your poorer citizens 
> > get such a lousy deal at the moment...
> 
> I am considered a poverty case by our governments 
> own standards, and I do not have any such "lousy deal"
> when it comes to health care, just the opposite.
> 
> The only people who will benefit are the illegal aliens
> who have no repect for the rule of law and flood our 
> country, overloading our health system and our school
> system and our crime-prevention system.
> 
> We have  _always_  been friendly for immigration here,
> when people go in the front door and abide by our laws.
> 
> Every nation has the right to chose their own form 
> of government - - - or   _should_   have that right,
> unless an oppressive government takes away their 
> right to choose.
> 
> If I wanted to live in a socialist nanny-state society,
> I would move to a socialist country.
> 
> If   _you_   wanted rampant money-grubbing capitalism,
> you would likely move to the USA.
> 
> If either one of us wanted the communist-control form of
> government, we would move to China or North Korea.
> (now  _those_  are two countries which 
>              do not have hordes of illegal aliens 
>                     trying to get into their country <g> )
>         
> 
> We don't, so we are both happy  staying where we are.
> 
> 
> 
> > What I know about the American system is summed up 
> > in the film, 'As Good As It Gets'. 
> > 
> > It is frightening that there are pressures 
> > to go the same way over here.
> 
> That is funny <g>
> 
> I feel exactly the same way, only in reverse.   I feel that
> rampant socialism is being jammed down our throats here,
> whether we want it or not.
> 
> Mark-

Sorry, you wouldn't know what "rampant socialism" is if your life 
depended on it.

In article <C759A3A1.4E451%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym
<nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:

> > Regulated socialised
> 
> Ooooohhh....you said the "S" word! You must be a left-wing commie
> sympathizer.

Naw, rules and regulations for us right-wingers were 
updated recently, commies are our buddies now.

We are now directed by our king (Rush Limbaugh) to pick 
on the muslims.   Countries like the UK don't dare, because 
of the huge muslim presence there.


Here is a little bit for all you bleeding-heart liberals:

<http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty523.htm>

�I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam 
had to say. The Imam gave a great presentation of the 
basics of Islam, complete with a video. After the 
presentations, time was provided for questions and answers. 

�When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam 
and asked:            �Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I
understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have
declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels 
of the world and, that by killing an infidel, 
(which is a command  to all Muslims) they are assured 
of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me 
the definition of an infidel?' 

�There was no disagreement with my statements and, 
without hesitation, he replied, �Non-believers!� 

�I responded, �So, let me make sure I have this straight. 
All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone 
who is not of your faith so they can have a place in heaven. 
Is that correct?� 

�The expression on his face changed from one of authority 
and command to that of a little boy who had just been 
caught with his hand in the cookie jar."



Now  'scuse  me, I found a copy of the Koran that I need 
to flush down the toilet.

Mark-

In article <009454a3$0$16943$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates
<warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> You're not very bright are you?

No, old age and lack of cognition almost always 
go hand-in-hand.

I can't even shake my head any more because 
my brain has shrunk to the size of a walnut.


> You used to evince a little more 
> intelligence, couple of years ago.

Old age cognition degradation is logarithmic, 
check with me a month from now and I will likely
be so senile that I might turn into a bleeding-heart
liberal, slavishly believing that an omnipotent nanny
state socialist government "knows best".


> Been tested for dementia lately? 

I do not believe in wasting medical time on the obvious.



Now about those death panels that ObamaCare creates.

That is the one good thing in his bloated health bill.

I and most of my half-dead friends are all in favor 
of death panels, lemme explain.

Few years ago took my 20 year old cat to the cat
hospital near here, paid $200 to to give "Garfield"
a going-away party.  She had a male personality,
therefore the male "Garfield" name.

She was doing things like falling over face-first 
in her cat feeding dish, not enjoying life much.

Balloons, cat treats, everyone who was anyone was at
her party, she was happy and purring.

Vet gave her the shot (lethal injection) - - - at the 
time she was licking my finger.

Death occurred instantly, no pain or spasm.

Only way we could tell that she was dead was that her 
tongue stayed half way out in mid-lick.

For humans, old geezers would be standing in line 
trying to get into any halfways decent death shop
sponsored by ObamaCare.  I would be the first one
in line.

Years ago we had a doctor here in the USA that 
would put people out of their misery.

They slapped that guy in jail, bummer.


Y'know what, I was actually envious of my cat, because 
I watched all my personal friends die in pain at these
end-of-life "hospices" for the terminally ill.

Not for me, buddy.  Right now I have several applications
cooking, as a security guard in any high-risk crime area,
or as a cop in Bagdad.   Plus my motorcycle license is still
valid and operational, I might start competitive 
murdercycle racing - - - with a "blower" that runs
only $600  I can get a bike well over 200 mph.

Drag bikes get close to 300 mph near the end of their run.

Mark-

In article <261220090101408857%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-F04E68.08181326122009@news.albasani.net>,
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > I am sorry so many millions of your poorer citizens 
> > get such a lousy deal at the moment and that someone 
> > who is trying desperately to do something about it 
> > is being torn to shreds and hampered in his every 
> > effort before he can get anything at all going.
> 
> Hampered?  -  seems to me he is getting everything 
> his own way, his bloated health bill has passed both 
> houses of congress here.
> 
I am always a few days late on the latest news... I think you better 
study what he wanted and take away what he got after all the vested 
interests got stuck into it. 
> 
> > I am sorry so many millions of your poorer citizens 
> > get such a lousy deal at the moment...
> 
> I am considered a poverty case by our governments 
> own standards, and I do not have any such "lousy deal"
> when it comes to health care, just the opposite.
> 
> The only people who will benefit are the illegal aliens
> who have no repect for the rule of law and flood our 
> country, overloading our health system and our school
> system and our crime-prevention system.

Helen Hunt's son was not an illegal immigrant and if it was not for the 
fact that his mum met Jack Nicholson, a famous author with money and 
connections, he was set for a miserable life with his asthma.

-- 
dorayme

In article <261220090101469204%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> In article <0093127c$0$8156$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates
> <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > ...my family doctor sees me within minimally 48 hours 
> > and sometimes the same day.
> 
> Hope for your sake you do not get "maybe" symptoms of
> a brain aneurysm that needs prompt action in less than
> an hour, a burst aneurysm (stroke) is a major killer 
> which will not wait for the slow nanny-state testing 
> approval in your country.

You have a distorted view, I am afraid, about what happens in countries 
that have different health systems to the US. In Australia, for example, 
it is precisely the above situation that the poorest of the poor often 
and usually gets the best that medical science can offer and as promptly 
as the ambulance gets to a hospital. And they get to go home to their 
own home, their old car is still in their driveway, the furniture is 
still there and they even get to keep their own bed.

-- 
dorayme

In article <261220090101408857%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> If I wanted to live in a socialist nanny-state society,
> I would move to a socialist country.

I meant to comment on this and forgot. You have a very distorted view 
indeed. You *are* living in a nanny state because of the drug 
prohibition laws where adults are not allowed to do what the hell they 
like to their own bodies. The consequences of this are incredibly far 
reaching; your courts, jails and hospitals are unnecessarily fuller than 
they would be otherwise and by a huge factor.

<http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws.html>

-- 
dorayme

In article <doraymeRidThis-D091C8.08364227122009@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> You have a distorted view, I am afraid, about what happens in countries 
> that have different health systems to the US. In Australia, for example, 
> it is precisely the above situation that the poorest of the poor often 
> and usually gets the best that medical science can offer and as promptly 
> as the ambulance gets to a hospital. And they get to go home to their 
> own home, their old car is still in their driveway, the furniture is 
> still there and they even get to keep their own bed.

Same here. The safety net hospitals are almost all teaching hospitals at 
big academic medical centers.  MCare pays for most of the really poor 
and even more when the hospitals do the paperwork to get people on the 
roles. Where there are some holes is for the working poor and more 
recently with those more middle class. The problems could be cured with 
some changes around the edges instead of a wholesale sacking of the 
current system.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <261220091140124348%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> Y'know what, I was actually envious of my cat, because 
> I watched all my personal friends die in pain at these
> end-of-life "hospices" for the terminally ill.
> 
> Not for me, buddy.  Right now I have several applications
> cooking, as a security guard in any high-risk crime area,
> or as a cop in Bagdad.   Plus my motorcycle license is still
> valid and operational, I might start competitive 
> murdercycle racing - - - with a "blower" that runs
> only $600  I can get a bike well over 200 mph.
> 
> Drag bikes get close to 300 mph near the end of their run.

Geez, Mark, you sure know how to depress our little gathering here!

-- 
dorayme

In article <doraymeRidThis-A81C56.08460927122009@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> In article <261220090101408857%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
>  Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > If I wanted to live in a socialist nanny-state society,
> > I would move to a socialist country.
> 
> I meant to comment on this and forgot. You have a very distorted view 
> indeed. You *are* living in a nanny state because of the drug 
> prohibition laws where adults are not allowed to do what the hell they 
> like to their own bodies. The consequences of this are incredibly far 
> reaching; your courts, jails and hospitals are unnecessarily fuller than 
> they would be otherwise and by a huge factor.
> 
>
     Courts and jails certainly. Having worked substance abuse units as 
an RN in past, I am not remotely sure of the hospitals. Even discounting 
the costs of stopping if they want to, all of the recreational 
pharmaceuticals have health concerns. Even, as emerging research is 
starting to show, marijuana . There are also other social costs in 
abandoned families, paying for the drug of choice, lost wages and 
productivity that people studiously ignore. Not saying that WoD is the 
best answer, just that legalization only substitutes one set of problems 
for another.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > Rubbish - there are no waiting lists for critical and emergency cases in
> > Canada, the UK, NZ, etc. So long as you or a doctor catches the symptoms
> > and you reach a hospital in time, you'll get immediate high quality
> > care. It's that very immediate care of such cases that helps cause the
> > waiting lists for less serious procedures. What - did you think it was a
> > case of first come first served regardless of the ailment?
> 
> What about the waiting times for the appointment that diagnoses
> something critical where the patient had thought it was trivial?
> 
> Not that it doesn't happen in USA--I lost a pound a day for two
> months before a urine test showed where it was going.  The only
> reason I had the test was because it was routine when I showed up
> at E.R. for something unrelated.

The only time I have to wait to see a GP is if I only want to see my
own. If I need to see a doctor immediately I can do so the same day, no
problem. I just need to say it's serious (and suspect it was - I grant
you. But that's no fault of the doc's). Otherwise I might have a wait of
one to three days typically. I've never felt that's bad.

I can tell you I recently got a Doctor's appointment on the 23rd of
December and I'd only called on the 22nd. Not bad at Christmas time. Why
- how long do you have to wait to see your GP?

Now wait times to see specialists can be longer - a week or more at
least IME (it depends a lot on the specialist's field and the resulting
demand). But that's why you go see your GP - they'll fast track things
as necessary.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

William Clark wrote:
> Which, I suppose, is why the US spends almost 50% more per person on 
> health care than other western countries with national health care 
> systems, but still winds up at 30th+ in the world's life expectancy 
> table. Well behind the same Europeans countries.

According to the National Geographic chart I mentioned in another post, 
it's way more than 150% of the average.  Then again, the life expectancy
(according to the same chart) is about average.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Up-coming lesson on explicit grammar instruction
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1589

In article
<wclark2-13A95A.13353926122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:

> Sorry, you wouldn't know what "rampant socialism" 
> is if your life depended on it.


Oh I understand clearly exactly what socialism 
is, it is midway between capitalism and communism
when it comes to "controlling" and "regulating" 
what you and I do in our personal lives.

Now if you really think you need a nanny to 
control you, I believe you should practice 
a little ahead of time.

I will help you, I will play the part of an 
all knowing all wise politician, your "nanny".

I will regulate when you can crap, how much you 
can crap, and where you can crap.

Now don't you feel all warm and cozy?


Below are some systems of government, starting 
with the system that gives the individual the 
most control over his own life, and ending with
the system that is the most oppressive to the 
individual being "regulated" - - - ideal for 
brain-damaged idiot liberals who need 
cradle-to-grave nanny supervision and control.





capitalism  (noun)
   An economic and political system in which 
a country's trade and industry are controlled 
by private owners for profit, rather than by 
the state.



socialism  (noun)
   A political and economic theory of social 
organization that advocates that the means of 
production, distribution, and exchange should 
be owned or regulated by the community as 
a whole. 
   Policy or practice based on this theory.
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social
state between the overthrow of capitalism 
and the realization of communism.



communism (noun)
   A political theory derived from Karl Marx, 
advocating class war and leading to a society 
in which all property is publicly owned and 
each person works and is paid according to 
their abilities and needs.
   The most familiar form of communism is that 
established by the Bolsheviks after the Russian 
Revolution of 1917, and it has generally been 
understood in terms of the system practiced by 
the former USSR and its allies in eastern Europe,
in China since 1949, and in some developing 
countries such as Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea.
   Communism embraced a revolutionary ideology 
in which the state would wither away after the 
overthrow of the capitalist system.
   In practice, however, the state grew to control
all aspects of communist society.  Communism in 
eastern Europe collapsed in the late 1980s and 
early 1900s against a background of failure to 
meet people's economic expectations...


Mark-

In article <hh6bsp$dh9$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> William Clark wrote:
> > Which, I suppose, is why the US spends almost 50% more per person on 
> > health care than other western countries with national health care 
> > systems, but still winds up at 30th+ in the world's life expectancy 
> > table. Well behind the same Europeans countries.
> 
> According to the National Geographic chart I mentioned in another post, 
> it's way more than 150% of the average.  Then again, the life expectancy
> (according to the same chart) is about average.

    Both life expectancy and infant mortality seem to be skewed by 
societal problems that are really outside the purview of medicine. For 
instance, life expectancy figures are impacted more by a 15 year old 
killed in a drive by than keeping a geezer alive another year or so. If 
you look at the rate of teenage pregnancies in developed countries, 
those with highest rates of pregnancy are in the lower tiers of infant 
mortality. Largely because teenage pregnancies have a higher level of 
low and extremely low birth weight babies. This is independent of who 
does the insurance program. The birth figures are futher skewed because 
there are major differences between countries on what constitutes a live 
birth. Some don't count babies born below a certain weight at live 
births and generally don't try to rescusitate. In the US, if they take 
anything resembling a first breath they are given full bore treatment 
despite very higher failure rates. 
     When I hit the lottery, the first thing I am going to do is to pay 
for a study that tries to control for non-medical societal influences 
(such as the above) on these measures. Will be interesting to see how 
the US comes out.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <hh5gn5$8t4$2@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> Not that it doesn't happen in USA--I lost a pound a day for two
> months before a urine test showed where it was going.  The only
> reason I had the test was because it was routine when I showed up
> at E.R. for something unrelated.

C'mon Wes -- you let yourself lose 60 pounds before seeing a doctor? 
What, you thought you were just getting the benefits of that daily walk? 
The patients (us) have a responsibility to at least monitor their health.
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

In article <doraymeRidThis-51EB85.08544427122009@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> Geez, Mark, you sure know how to depress our little gathering here!

It's prob'ly my fault. Still, I don't have a real problem with 
euthanasia, or suicide either. That's not what that "death panel" fear 
mongering is about though.
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

In article <271220090425085791%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> Now if you really think you need a nanny to 
> control you, I believe you should practice 
> a little ahead of time.

I guess that's why you Yanks (and other nations, too, it's true, but it 
started in the USA) have let your entertainment industry lawyer scumbags 
take over your constitution and and your telecommunications networks and 
your government for that matter. Discuss. Show your work.
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

In article <261220091140063992%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> 
> Now  'scuse  me, I found a copy of the Koran that I need 
> to flush down the toilet.

Fair enough, but I've personally suffered more at the hands of filthy 
demented christers. I don't think I've ever actually socialized with a 
Mozlem. So I'd wipe my ass with pages from the New Testament except the 
fucken paper's too thin.
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

In article <271220090425085791%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> In article
> <wclark2-13A95A.13353926122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > Sorry, you wouldn't know what "rampant socialism" 
> > is if your life depended on it.
> 
> 
> Oh I understand clearly exactly what socialism 
> is, it is midway between capitalism and communism
> when it comes to "controlling" and "regulating" 
> what you and I do in our personal lives.
> 
> Now if you really think you need a nanny to 
> control you, I believe you should practice 
> a little ahead of time.
> 
> I will help you, I will play the part of an 
> all knowing all wise politician, your "nanny".
> 
> I will regulate when you can crap, how much you 
> can crap, and where you can crap.
> 
> Now don't you feel all warm and cozy?
> 
> 
> Below are some systems of government, starting 
> with the system that gives the individual the 
> most control over his own life, and ending with
> the system that is the most oppressive to the 
> individual being "regulated" - - - ideal for 
> brain-damaged idiot liberals who need 
> cradle-to-grave nanny supervision and control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> capitalism  (noun)
>    An economic and political system in which 
> a country's trade and industry are controlled 
> by private owners for profit, rather than by 
> the state.
> 
> 
> 
> socialism  (noun)
>    A political and economic theory of social 
> organization that advocates that the means of 
> production, distribution, and exchange should 
> be owned or regulated by the community as 
> a whole. 
>    Policy or practice based on this theory.
> (in Marxist theory) a transitional social
> state between the overthrow of capitalism 
> and the realization of communism.
> 
> 
> 
> communism (noun)
>    A political theory derived from Karl Marx, 
> advocating class war and leading to a society 
> in which all property is publicly owned and 
> each person works and is paid according to 
> their abilities and needs.
>    The most familiar form of communism is that 
> established by the Bolsheviks after the Russian 
> Revolution of 1917, and it has generally been 
> understood in terms of the system practiced by 
> the former USSR and its allies in eastern Europe,
> in China since 1949, and in some developing 
> countries such as Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea.
>    Communism embraced a revolutionary ideology 
> in which the state would wither away after the 
> overthrow of the capitalist system.
>    In practice, however, the state grew to control
> all aspects of communist society.  Communism in 
> eastern Europe collapsed in the late 1980s and 
> early 1900s against a background of failure to 
> meet people's economic expectations...
> 
> 
> Mark-

As I said, you wouldn't know what it was if it bit you.

In article <hh6bsp$dh9$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> William Clark wrote:
> > Which, I suppose, is why the US spends almost 50% more per person on 
> > health care than other western countries with national health care 
> > systems, but still winds up at 30th+ in the world's life expectancy 
> > table. Well behind the same Europeans countries.
> 
> According to the National Geographic chart I mentioned in another post, 
> it's way more than 150% of the average.  Then again, the life expectancy
> (according to the same chart) is about average.

Indeed it is - I was being gentle with the poor soul.

In article <KqGdnVbp2OCfyKrWnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <hh6bsp$dh9$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> 
> > William Clark wrote:
> > > Which, I suppose, is why the US spends almost 50% more per person on 
> > > health care than other western countries with national health care 
> > > systems, but still winds up at 30th+ in the world's life expectancy 
> > > table. Well behind the same Europeans countries.
> > 
> > According to the National Geographic chart I mentioned in another post, 
> > it's way more than 150% of the average.  Then again, the life expectancy
> > (according to the same chart) is about average.
> 
>     Both life expectancy and infant mortality seem to be skewed by 
> societal problems that are really outside the purview of medicine. For 
> instance, life expectancy figures are impacted more by a 15 year old 
> killed in a drive by than keeping a geezer alive another year or so. If 
> you look at the rate of teenage pregnancies in developed countries, 
> those with highest rates of pregnancy are in the lower tiers of infant 
> mortality. Largely because teenage pregnancies have a higher level of 
> low and extremely low birth weight babies. This is independent of who 
> does the insurance program. The birth figures are futher skewed because 
> there are major differences between countries on what constitutes a live 
> birth. Some don't count babies born below a certain weight at live 
> births and generally don't try to rescusitate. In the US, if they take 
> anything resembling a first breath they are given full bore treatment 
> despite very higher failure rates. 
>      When I hit the lottery, the first thing I am going to do is to pay 
> for a study that tries to control for non-medical societal influences 
> (such as the above) on these measures. Will be interesting to see how 
> the US comes out.

Ah, the standard wingnut dogma to try to get out of the life expectancy 
trap. Sorry, it doesn't wash. The data are from the UN and WHO and are 
filtered for difference in reporting practice, so you can save your 
lottery money, because the study has/is already been done.

Nice sidestep of the question as to why Americans spend so much on 
health care, but can't stay alive as long as the Swedes, Brits, and 
others.

In article <yJWdnTfj0agQGavWnZ2dnUVZ_rZi4p2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-D091C8.08364227122009@news.albasani.net>,
>  dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > You have a distorted view, I am afraid, about what happens in countries 
> > that have different health systems to the US. In Australia, for example, 
> > it is precisely the above situation that the poorest of the poor often 
> > and usually gets the best that medical science can offer and as promptly 
> > as the ambulance gets to a hospital. And they get to go home to their 
> > own home, their old car is still in their driveway, the furniture is 
> > still there and they even get to keep their own bed.
> 
> Same here. The safety net hospitals are almost all teaching hospitals at 
> big academic medical centers.  MCare pays for most of the really poor 
> and even more when the hospitals do the paperwork to get people on the 
> roles. Where there are some holes is for the working poor and more 
> recently with those more middle class. The problems could be cured with 
> some changes around the edges instead of a wholesale sacking of the 
> current system.

The lunacy in the current US system is the notion that health care 
should be provided by private insurance companies (whose business is 
based on eliminating high risk clients), and linked to employment. There 
is simply no logic in that any more.

In article 
<wclark2-534414.09473627122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
 William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
g to see how 
> > the US comes out.
> 
> Ah, the standard wingnut dogma to try to get out of the life expectancy 
> trap. Sorry, it doesn't wash. The data are from the UN and WHO and are 
> filtered for difference in reporting practice, so you can save your 
> lottery money, because the study has/is already been done.

   I've read the reports and they don't look at such things. Unless you 
are seeing ones I haven't seen. A very high possibility since they do 
come out with so much stuff.  Give me a couple places to look.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article 
<wclark2-C7DDF6.09503127122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
 William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:

> The lunacy in the current US system is the notion that health care 
> should be provided by private insurance companies (whose business is 
> based on eliminating high risk clients), and linked to employment. There 
> is simply no logic in that any more.

   Yeah the government has done so well with MCare where the trustees 
note it will go bankrupt in a couple of years, people have to spend 
large amounts of money for "gap" coverage, and pays so little that fewer 
and fewer docs are accepting new MCare patients. Heck, yes, I am sold!

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <28Kdnd_N68_PGqrWnZ2dnUVZ_r5i4p2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <wclark2-C7DDF6.09503127122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>  William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > The lunacy in the current US system is the notion that health care 
> > should be provided by private insurance companies (whose business is 
> > based on eliminating high risk clients), and linked to employment. There 
> > is simply no logic in that any more.
> 
>    Yeah the government has done so well with MCare where the trustees 
> note it will go bankrupt in a couple of years, people have to spend 
> large amounts of money for "gap" coverage, and pays so little that fewer 
> and fewer docs are accepting new MCare patients. Heck, yes, I am sold!

If you let private insurance companies cherry pick the low-cost parts of 
health care, you will leave the taxpayer with just the expensive 
residue. Again, what is the link between employment and health care? It 
makes no sense.

In article <28KdndzN689-G6rWnZ2dnUVZ_r5i4p2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <wclark2-534414.09473627122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>  William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> g to see how 
> > > the US comes out.
> > 
> > Ah, the standard wingnut dogma to try to get out of the life expectancy 
> > trap. Sorry, it doesn't wash. The data are from the UN and WHO and are 
> > filtered for difference in reporting practice, so you can save your 
> > lottery money, because the study has/is already been done.
> 
>    I've read the reports and they don't look at such things. Unless you 
> are seeing ones I haven't seen. A very high possibility since they do 
> come out with so much stuff.  Give me a couple places to look.

I obviously am. UN and WHO reports, to be precise, 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/12/AR2007081
200113_pf.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/210
2rank.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by
_the_United_Nations_.282005-2010.29

You can spin these any way you want, but for the US to rank at #34/50 is 
simply a disgrace.

In article <00aff6d1$0$1596$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates
<warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Now  'scuse  me, I found a copy of the Koran that I need 
> > to flush down the toilet.
> 
> Fair enough, but I've personally suffered more at the hands of filthy 
> demented christers. I don't think I've ever actually socialized with a 
> Mozlem. So I'd wipe my ass with pages from the New Testament except 
> the fucken paper's too thin.

heh heh, come to think of it, they used to bang on my door 
about once a week to "save" me, until I got a very large dog.

For some reason, they did not care to "save" the dog.



> > Now if you really think you need a nanny to 
> > control you, I believe you should practice 
> > a little ahead of time.
> 
> I guess that's why you Yanks (and other nations, too, it's true, but it 
> started in the USA) have let your entertainment industry lawyer
> scumbags take over your constitution and and your 
> telecommunications networks and your government for that matter.

Yeah, nothing short of a full blown dictatorship with orders to
kill the lawyers would get rid of them now.

Mark-

In article
<wclark2-C7DDF6.09503127122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:

> The lunacy in the current US system is the notion 
> that health care should be provided by private 
> insurance companies (whose business is based on 
> eliminating high risk clients), and linked to 
> employment. There is simply no logic 
> in that any more.

Faulty logic on your above statement.

Insurance companies do not provide health care,
the money comes from taxes.

All the insurance company does is to juggle all that
tax money before it is dispensed to the health 
industry, plus keep a very small portion of 
that tax money for themselves, as a fee.

If they keep   _too_    _much_   money for themselves,
a competitive insurance company will run them 
out of business.


That is,
....unless some ObamaCare politicians decide to eliminate
_all_    health insurance companies.   If that happens, 
there is nothing to prevent the ObamaCare zealots from 
grabbing as much tax money as they want to grab.


Unlike you, I do not trust any nanny-state politicians to do
the Right Thing.

Mark-

In article 
<wclark2-C774A1.14203827122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
 William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:

> If you let private insurance companies cherry pick the low-cost parts of 
> health care, you will leave the taxpayer with just the expensive 
> residue. Again, what is the link between employment and health care? It 
> makes no sense.

  That we agree on. The link was established by (gasp) the government 
during WWII. The natives were getting restless with the wage freeze. In 
order to quiet the natives and the government decided that paying for 
health insurance wasn't REALLY a wage increase. This, to my mind, was 
the initial idiocy that started us on the path to where we are today.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article 
<wclark2-BA7199.14291727122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
 William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:

> In article <28KdndzN689-G6rWnZ2dnUVZ_r5i4p2d@earthlink.com>,
>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article 
> > <wclark2-534414.09473627122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> >  William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> > g to see how 
> > > > the US comes out.
> > > 
> > > Ah, the standard wingnut dogma to try to get out of the life expectancy 
> > > trap. Sorry, it doesn't wash. The data are from the UN and WHO and are 
> > > filtered for difference in reporting practice, so you can save your 
> > > lottery money, because the study has/is already been done.
> > 
> >    I've read the reports and they don't look at such things. Unless you 
> > are seeing ones I haven't seen. A very high possibility since they do 
> > come out with so much stuff.  Give me a couple places to look.
> 
> I obviously am. UN and WHO reports, to be precise, 
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/12/AR2007081
> 200113_pf.html
> 

  This one actually tends to make my case. It doesn't address the social 
issues I was asking about, but does bring some others.

> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/210
> 2rank.html
> 
  
   Listing has nothing at all to do with what I was discussing. 

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by
> _the_United_Nations_.282005-2010.29
> 
   Same with this one.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <271220090425085791%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> I will regulate when you can crap, how much you 
> can crap, and where you can crap.
> 
> Now don't you feel all warm and cozy?

You should feel colder soon, having lost some body heat.

-- 
dorayme

On Dec/26/2009 4:0140 AM, Mark Conrad wrote:
> ...
>
> I feel exactly the same way, only in reverse.   I feel that
> rampant socialism is being jammed down our throats here,
> whether we want it or not.
>


Not forced down anyone's throat. There was an election. Obama promised 
to support Congress in passing health care reform pretty much like what 
the House of Representatives has recently passed. In that election Obama 
received a decisive majority of the popular and of the electoral vote. 
The people also elected a congress with a clear majority in favor of 
health care reform and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The 
people are getting what they voted for and you can go anywhere your sore 
throat can be cured.


I hope I don't become so senile that I would become a racist, fascistic 
Conservative, campaigning to replace instruction about evolution in the 
public schools with instruction about Scientific Creationism in the 
manner of a true-blue Conservative like you.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

In article <ucOdnedBc6S6VqrWnZ2dnUVZ_gJi4p2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <wclark2-C774A1.14203827122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>  William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > If you let private insurance companies cherry pick the low-cost parts of 
> > health care, you will leave the taxpayer with just the expensive 
> > residue. Again, what is the link between employment and health care? It 
> > makes no sense.
> 
>   That we agree on. The link was established by (gasp) the government 
> during WWII. The natives were getting restless with the wage freeze. In 
> order to quiet the natives and the government decided that paying for 
> health insurance wasn't REALLY a wage increase. This, to my mind, was 
> the initial idiocy that started us on the path to where we are today.

Indeed it was - the only way to attract workers while there was a wage 
freeze on was for companies to offer fringes, such as health insurance. 
I agree, too, that we should now uncouple health care from private 
insurance companies via employers once and for all.

In article <271220091148147587%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> In article
> <wclark2-C7DDF6.09503127122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > The lunacy in the current US system is the notion 
> > that health care should be provided by private 
> > insurance companies (whose business is based on 
> > eliminating high risk clients), and linked to 
> > employment. There is simply no logic 
> > in that any more.
> 
> Faulty logic on your above statement.
> 
> Insurance companies do not provide health care,
> the money comes from taxes.

Faulty logic from you. The insurance companies do not "juggle tax 
money", they take money directly out of wages and salaries, on a system 
that is not based on the insureds' income. That is 180 degrees out of 
phase with the tax system. 
> 
> All the insurance company does is to juggle all that
> tax money before it is dispensed to the health 
> industry, plus keep a very small portion of 
> that tax money for themselves, as a fee.

In the meantime, doing their best to deny expensive claims, and dump 
clients whom they classify as high risk.
> 
> If they keep   _too_    _much_   money for themselves,
> a competitive insurance company will run them 
> out of business.

No it won't, because it is run on a state by state basis. In most states 
there are only a very few insurers, so there is not genuine competition 
in the marketplace. They have this sewn up like a cartel.
> 
> 
> That is,
> ...unless some ObamaCare politicians decide to eliminate
> _all_    health insurance companies.   If that happens, 
> there is nothing to prevent the ObamaCare zealots from 
> grabbing as much tax money as they want to grab.

Jolly good - you need to go and lie down now.
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I do not trust any nanny-state politicians to do
> the Right Thing.

But you are in love with the idea of big insurance corporations doing 
so. I see.

In article <KJidndtVFfChUarWnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <wclark2-BA7199.14291727122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>  William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <28KdndzN689-G6rWnZ2dnUVZ_r5i4p2d@earthlink.com>,
> >  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article 
> > > <wclark2-534414.09473627122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> > >  William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> > > g to see how 
> > > > > the US comes out.
> > > > 
> > > > Ah, the standard wingnut dogma to try to get out of the life expectancy 
> > > > trap. Sorry, it doesn't wash. The data are from the UN and WHO and are 
> > > > filtered for difference in reporting practice, so you can save your 
> > > > lottery money, because the study has/is already been done.
> > > 
> > >    I've read the reports and they don't look at such things. Unless you 
> > > are seeing ones I haven't seen. A very high possibility since they do 
> > > come out with so much stuff.  Give me a couple places to look.
> > 
> > I obviously am. UN and WHO reports, to be precise, 
> > 
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/12/AR2007081
> > 200113_pf.html
> > 
> 
>   This one actually tends to make my case. It doesn't address the social 
> issues I was asking about, but does bring some others.

The social issues are a red herring. if they are not, then we have an 
even more fundamental question of why the richest and most powerful 
nation on earth takes cares of its citizens so badly, and no just in 
terms of health care.
> 
> > https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/210
> > 2rank.html
> > 
>   
>    Listing has nothing at all to do with what I was discussing. 
> 
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by
> > _the_United_Nations_.282005-2010.29
> > 
>    Same with this one.

Sure they do. These are the numbers. It simply does not wash that you 
can explain away why 50 countries, from Sweden to the UK to Jordan, can 
provide for their citizens to live longer than those in the US. You can 
try, but it does not work.

In article 
<wclark2-CF8C5A.17112927122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
 William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:


> > 
> > Faulty logic on your above statement.
> > 
> > Insurance companies do not provide health care,
> > the money comes from taxes.
> 
> Faulty logic from you. The insurance companies do not "juggle tax 
> money", they take money directly out of wages and salaries, on a system 
> that is not based on the insureds' income. That is 180 degrees out of 
> phase with the tax system. 

   If you look at it the proper way, they do mess with tax money since 
the employer contribution is tax deductible. FWIW, it the single biggest 
tax deduction. 

>
> > 
> > If they keep   _too_    _much_   money for themselves,
> > a competitive insurance company will run them 
> > out of business.
> 
> No it won't, because it is run on a state by state basis. In most states 
> there are only a very few insurers, so there is not genuine competition 
> in the marketplace. They have this sewn up like a cartel.

  That is largely because every state is different and you have to be 
licensed to operate in that state. Only a couple companies can afford to 
mess with the overhead of having to deal with 50 different states, with 
50 different policy requirements, etc.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article 
<wclark2-B42D46.17143227122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
 William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:

>
> >   This one actually tends to make my case. It doesn't address the social 
> > issues I was asking about, but does bring some others.
> 
> The social issues are a red herring. if they are not, then we have an 
> even more fundamental question of why the richest and most powerful 
> nation on earth takes cares of its citizens so badly, and no just in 
> terms of health care.

   Maybe, maybe not. I would like to know for sure. I am not fantasizing 
that controlling for the social issues will move us to first or second 
in any category. But it would give us a clearer picture of where we 
REALLY sit. 
     For instance, there are several studies suggesting that a hefty 
percentage of the reduction in murder rates is related to the health 
services (specifically trauma centers) turning murders into attempted 
murders. 
http://www.uic.edu/classes/psych/psych242/Articles/Murder&MedicineJHSMAY2
002.pdf

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <wclark2-C7DDF6.09503127122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>  William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > The lunacy in the current US system is the notion that health care 
> > should be provided by private insurance companies (whose business is
> > based on eliminating high risk clients), and linked to employment. There
> > is simply no logic in that any more.
> 
>    Yeah the government has done so well with MCare where the trustees
> note it will go bankrupt in a couple of years, people have to spend 
> large amounts of money for "gap" coverage, and pays so little that fewer
> and fewer docs are accepting new MCare patients. Heck, yes, I am sold!

Maybe they should look outside the US for answers, not to mention
examples of what works and what doesn't.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article 241220092233156424%aeiou@mostly.invalid, Mark Conrad at
aeiou@mostly.invalid wrote on 12/25/09 1:33 AM:

> In article <C759A282.4E44F%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym
> <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> 
....
.... 
> 
> 
>> Look, right now I have absolutely no real choice when it comes to my
>> health-care insurance. Years ago, before the Industry got "special
>> dispensation," I had several choices; didn't have to take out a second
>> mortgage to pay increasing premiums (health-care premiums do indeed
>> rival
>> mortgage payments) for _shrinking_ coverage; nor fear that my policy
>> might
>> not be renewed and I'd find myself "uninsurable" next year for a
>> condition I
>> developed this year. A little competition -- that "free market"
>> economics
>> stuff that the right wingnuts seem to claim stewardship of (including
>> the
>> God-given right to interpret what the hell it means and when and where
>> it
>> applies), to suit their (or their corporate sponsors') agenda, certainly
>> wouldn't hurt.
> 
> Okay, I will agree that the right-wingnuts (of which I am one)
> sometimes go too far, but they are orders of magnitude better at
> medical decisions than rabid left wing socialist politicians with

What is the special expertise in medical decision making that they bring to
bear, and where can the rest of us sorry, ill-informed morons acquire it?


> Muslim leanings who are constantly running down our brand
> of capitalist democracy to the world.


What do the Muslims have to do with freakin' US healthcare policy? And when
did they all band together to "constantly run down our brand of capitalist
democracy?" May I ask: Do you even _know_ any Muslims? Or are you simply
regurgitating everything that Mssrs. Limbaugh and Beck -- those Illuminati
of Socio-Political Thought and World Culture -- spout on their TV programs?

You know, Mark, it seems to me that any time the right wing doesn't like an
idea or position, they blame it on the lefties/commies, Al Quaeda (or
Muslims -- after all, they're all members of Al Quaeda, right?), etc. --
whomever the Enemy of the (US) State _Du Jour_ may be -- and then point a
finger at anyone who supports the idea/position -- or even simply doesn't
vehemently criticize it -- and accuse them of being a leftie/commie/etc.
sympathizer, if not a straight out anti-American Enemy of the State. This
kind of Witch Hunting-and-Burning logic (hmmm...the Church sponsored that
kind of terrorist activity, along with the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition,
etc., didn't it?) seems to be a favored Right Wing approach to structuring
argument (along with Flag Waving) designed to dissuade dissent.

 
> I for certain did not like the Bush stand on stem-cell research,
> nor do I like the Right Wing rabid types denying global warming,

Hmmm...you probably've been drinking too much of that fluoridated water,
dontcha think?


> even though I am a dues-paying member of the Rush Limbaugh
> for president movement.   ;-)    ;-)    ;-)
> 

I rest my case. ;P

 
> 
>>> Why? - Because your fly-by-night competitive "regulated"
>>> blood lab did not check you for rare blood types, and you
>>> have the rare "Bombay phenotype"  type of blood.
>>> (there are about 200 rare blood types)
>>> 
>> 
>> Ah! I see. Competition inevitably leads to
>> "lowest-bidder-offering-poorest-
>> quality-always-wins" economics.
> 
> Right on, I have you pegged as a closet right-wingnut.
> 
> ...but then, I am a closet left-wingnut, go figure.
> 

Wrong on both counts.
 
> 
> 
>> Sort of like allowing a government-sponsored insurance
>> alternative, to stimulate competition and provide consumers
>> some choice, will lead to Death Panels, right?
> 
> Right on again, you frighten me.
> 

Oh? Now you're in favor of a "Public Option?"

 
> What  _really_  frightens me is that once we go down the
> socialist path, we will no longed have the power to return
> to a capitalistic democracy, as per one of the definitions
> in my Mac dictionary:
> 
>    -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> "socialism -  (in Marxist theory) a transitional social
> state between the overthrow of capitalism and the
> realization of communism."
> 
> "The term "socialism" has been used to describe
> positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state
> communism, and social democracy; however, it
> necessarily implies an opposition to the
> untrammeled workings of the economic market."
>    -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
> 
> Do we really want to abandon our capitalist
> democracy which has led to our high standard
> of living, and go down the path of a so-called
> "social democracy" like most Europeans have?
> 
> State dictated health care is certainly the first step
> towards a socialist system, so we had better well
> decide exactly what we want before we take that step.
> 
> Mark-

My God, Mark. Any public activity that the State gets involved with seems to
generate an irrational fear in you that that it might push us into the
Marxist Abyss that leads inexorably to our morphing into the Communist
States of America. Do you have so little regard for our Capitalist Democracy
-- so little belief in it as a way of life -- that you fear it's _that_
fragile? 

Tell me something else, Mark -- you never really commented on it when I
mentioned it before -- why is that public safety (police, fire), and even
public health (sanitation, food-and-drug safety), are activities that our
state and federal governments can legitimately be involved with, without
running the risk of plummeting our society into that Marxist Abyss, but
health care is not? What allows public safety and public health to be
considered "essential services" in a Capitalist Democracy, but not health
care? Are there certain defining characteristics that apply and metrics we
can use, or is it simply a matter of visceral wisdom, born of dogma and
stoked by the likes of Limbaugh and Beck?


-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

On Dec/27/2009 2:4814 PM, Mark Conrad wrote:
> In article
> <wclark2-C7DDF6.09503127122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> William Clark<wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com>  wrote:
>
>> ...
>
> Insurance companies do not provide health care,
> the money comes from taxes.
>
> All the insurance company does is to juggle all that
> tax money before it is dispensed to the health
> industry, plus keep a very small portion of
> that tax money for themselves, as a fee.
>
> If they keep   _too_    _much_   money for themselves,
> a competitive insurance company will run them
> out of business.
>


They grub for money any way they can. They collect payments for years 
until the client tries to collect a benefit and try to find some excuse 
to weasel out of paying. Only the richer clients have the resources to 
fight denial of benefits. There is no competition to protect clients 
from the weasels; only the fittest survive. Capitalism at work.


One of the most attractive features of the current legislation is 
compelling insurance companies to cover all comers. These are the risks 
most Western societies already take into account at far less cost than 
our insurance companies. It's good we are starting to learn from our 
betters.


>
> ...


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

In article 1pmdnR6B6uQKQ6nWnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@earthlink.com, Kurt Ullman at
kurtullman@yahoo.com wrote on 12/25/09 10:47 AM:

....
....
> If 
> you look at the polls, in the US, the number of people happy with THEIR
> insurance runs about 80%. However much less about the system in general.
> Sorta interesting that these numbers are pretty much in line with
> polling that shows little support for Congress, but much higher support
> for their personal CongressCritter. I am trying to figure out the
> importance of that congruence (g).

Important point not often mentioned: Those who like their health plans the
most are those who _use_ them the least.


-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

In article 271220091148147587%aeiou@mostly.invalid, Mark Conrad at
aeiou@mostly.invalid wrote on 12/27/09 2:48 PM:

> In article
> <wclark2-C7DDF6.09503127122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> 
>> The lunacy in the current US system is the notion
>> that health care should be provided by private
>> insurance companies (whose business is based on
>> eliminating high risk clients), and linked to
>> employment. There is simply no logic
>> in that any more.
> 
> Faulty logic on your above statement.
> 
> Insurance companies do not provide health care,
> the money comes from taxes.
> 
> All the insurance company does is to juggle all that
> tax money before it is dispensed to the health
> industry, plus keep a very small portion of
> that tax money for themselves, as a fee.
> 
> If they keep   _too_    _much_   money for themselves,
> a competitive insurance company will run them
> out of business.
> 
> 
> That is,
> ...unless some ObamaCare politicians decide to eliminate
> 
> _all_    health insurance companies.   If that happens,
> there is nothing to prevent the ObamaCare zealots from
> grabbing as much tax money as they want to grab.
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I do not trust any nanny-state politicians to do
> the Right Thing.
> 
> Mark-



Someone's been messin' with _your_ meds. <sheesh>

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

AV3 wrote:
> Not forced down anyone's throat. There was an election. Obama promised 
> to support Congress in passing health care reform pretty much like what 
> the House of Representatives has recently passed. In that election Obama 

He also promised to do something about "ear-marks" which make up
a large percentage of what the House and Senate have passed.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   World’s Strangest Laws
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1478

Nick Naym wrote:
> You know, Mark, it seems to me that any time the right wing doesn't like an
> idea or position, they blame it on the lefties/commies, Al Quaeda (or

And any time the left wing doesn't like an idea, ...

So how about all us moderates try to drown out both extremes
with a little civilized discussion?

-- 
Wes Groleau

    There ain't no right wing,
    there ain't no left wing.
    There's only you and me and we just disagree.
                               (apologies to Jim Krueger)

In article <Nd2dnYTv6vFHQKrWnZ2dnUVZ_uFi4p2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <wclark2-CF8C5A.17112927122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>  William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > Faulty logic on your above statement.
> > > 
> > > Insurance companies do not provide health care,
> > > the money comes from taxes.
> > 
> > Faulty logic from you. The insurance companies do not "juggle tax 
> > money", they take money directly out of wages and salaries, on a system 
> > that is not based on the insureds' income. That is 180 degrees out of 
> > phase with the tax system. 
> 
>    If you look at it the proper way, they do mess with tax money since 
> the employer contribution is tax deductible. FWIW, it the single biggest 
> tax deduction. 

Not to the individual, because it is not income based. Even more reason 
why our taxes should not be handed to insurance companies to make money 
from, especially when they will cut high risk taxpayers out of insurance.
> 
> >
> > > 
> > > If they keep   _too_    _much_   money for themselves,
> > > a competitive insurance company will run them 
> > > out of business.
> > 
> > No it won't, because it is run on a state by state basis. In most states 
> > there are only a very few insurers, so there is not genuine competition 
> > in the marketplace. They have this sewn up like a cartel.
> 
>   That is largely because every state is different and you have to be 
> licensed to operate in that state. Only a couple companies can afford to 
> mess with the overhead of having to deal with 50 different states, with 
> 50 different policy requirements, etc.

So the insurance companies divvy up the states between them so that only 
a couple operate in each one. That way they can all gouge the public. If 
we made health insurance federally regulated, instead of state 
regulated, the consumer could then truly shop for the best deal 
nationwide. That would acre the companies to death.

In article <0OCdnXomw8sMQqrWnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <wclark2-B42D46.17143227122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>  William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > >   This one actually tends to make my case. It doesn't address the social 
> > > issues I was asking about, but does bring some others.
> > 
> > The social issues are a red herring. if they are not, then we have an 
> > even more fundamental question of why the richest and most powerful 
> > nation on earth takes cares of its citizens so badly, and no just in 
> > terms of health care.
> 
>    Maybe, maybe not. I would like to know for sure. I am not fantasizing 
> that controlling for the social issues will move us to first or second 
> in any category. But it would give us a clearer picture of where we 
> REALLY sit. 
>      For instance, there are several studies suggesting that a hefty 
> percentage of the reduction in murder rates is related to the health 
> services (specifically trauma centers) turning murders into attempted 
> murders. 
> http://www.uic.edu/classes/psych/psych242/Articles/Murder&MedicineJHSMAY2
> 002.pdf

I fail to see how this is of any relevance to this discussion, other 
than to show that high quality health care prevents deaths from  
attempted murder, and so prolongs life expectancy. Ergo, our health care 
is not as good as it should be. Nor as efficient.

In article hh9dgl$t4m$1@news.eternal-september.org, Wes Groleau at
Groleau+news@FreeShell.org wrote on 12/27/09 11:51 PM:

> Nick Naym wrote:
>> You know, Mark, it seems to me that any time the right wing doesn't like an
>> idea or position, they blame it on the lefties/commies, Al Quaeda (or
> 
> And any time the left wing doesn't like an idea, ...
> 
> So how about all us moderates try to drown out both extremes
> with a little civilized discussion?

Good luck.

I pretty much gave up on politicians back in the McCarthy/McGovern days, and
politics as well...until Bush #2 ran, that is: He absolutely frightened me,
as did the wide swath of mindless Americans who actually voted for
him..._twice_. 

Seeing how things have proceeded these past few years, though at first I was
hopeful, I've since come to the conclusion that nothing much has changed:
Unless you're willing to choose one of the irrational extremes, you're voice
may be heard, and your candidate may even be elected...but it won't make a
rat's-ass difference.




-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

In article <C75DBCB9.4EDE1%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>,
Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Seeing how things have proceeded these past few years, though at first I was
> hopeful, I've since come to the conclusion that nothing much has changed:
> Unless you're willing to choose one of the irrational extremes, you're voice
> may be heard, and your candidate may even be elected...but it won't make a
> rat's-ass difference.

Sometimes there is a clear cut reason to support one
political candidate over another, based on their 
past performance.

Mark-

In article <hh9dgl$t4m$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Wes Groleau
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> So how about all us moderates try to drown out both extremes
> with a little civilized discussion?

Very good advice, I agree.

Mark-

In article <C75D8B76.4EDCB%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>,
Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> My God, Mark. Any public activity that the State gets involved with seems to
> generate an irrational fear in you that that it might push us into the
> Marxist Abyss that leads inexorably to our morphing into the Communist
> States of America. 

Yep.


> Do you have so little regard for our Capitalist Democracy
> -- so little belief in it as a way of life -- that you fear it's _that_
> fragile? 

Yep.


> Tell me something else, Mark -- you never really commented on it when I
> mentioned it before -- why is that public safety (police, fire), and
> even
> public health (sanitation, food-and-drug safety), are activities that
> our
> state and federal governments can legitimately be involved with, without
> running the risk of plummeting our society into that Marxist Abyss, but
> health care is not?

That's easy, greed.     All the public services you mentioned are not
large revenue generators, in contrast to health care, where 
there is much wrangling over who will get which piece 
of the trillion dollar pie.

Politicians or:     doctors/drug-companies/labs/insurance/etc.

....or are you naive enough to believe that the politicians would 
not try to steal money from health care for their own pet projects?

These same politicians are the ones who have already stolen 
so much money from S/S that our youngsters doubt they will
ever receive any benefits when   _they_   retire.

There is another concern, power.    The power crazed libs want to
control every aspect of our lives.   Money  =  Power

Short dictionary definition of socialism, a concept that appeals
to power-crazed liberals, liberals who have no faith whatever
in the integrity of the individual, who believe people should be
herded and regulated and controlled like cattle, with the 
politicians doing the herding controlling, of course.

Partial definition, complete definition in my earlier post,
all this from the free dictionary in the Mac OS.

socialism  (noun)
   A transitional social state between the overthrow of 
capitalism and the realization of communism.



> > Okay, I will agree that the right-wingnuts (of which I am one)
> > sometimes go too far, but they are orders of magnitude better at
> > medical decisions than rabid left wing socialist politicians with
> 
> What is the special expertise in medical decision making that they
> bring to
> bear, and where can the rest of us sorry, ill-informed morons acquire
> it?

So many ways they are better,  but I will just mention one.

If you look closely at the reports on the web leaking out 
as to what is in the ObamaCare power grab, they are 
offering financial incentives to individual doctors to 
encourage the doctors to abandon their practice, and 
instead join huge medical organizations like 
Kaiser-Permante where thousands of doctors can be 
more readily herded by the power-crazed libs.

So on the one hand they are penalizing the heck out of
private-practice doctors with new regulations like 
cutting off 5% of their medicare income if they exceed 
the "mediocre care" guidelines, while at the same time
dangling a financial carrot under their nose to get them
to capitulate and join the rest of the doctors being herded
into large Kaiser-Permante type corrals.


> What do the Muslims have to do with 
> freakin' US healthcare policy?

What? - You really do not see the connection between the
power-crazed libs and the power-crazed Muslims?

I forgot again, what is Obama's muslim name?

Muslims are so friggin controlling that they don't  
allow their women to go to the local market unless
accompanied by a male family member.

Women have to wear the head-to-toe clothing with
only their eyes peeking out.

You think the Muslims allow private-practice 
doctors?  That would not be consistant with 
their all-controlling stand on other matters.


So the libs headlong plunge into heavily socialized
medicine does not bother you as the opening shot 
to force us totally (temporarily) free people to get 
our private doctors socialized, then a wee bit later
to put the bit in everyone else's mouth?

Possible even adopt the Muslim religion, after all,
if   Obama & company can mandate medical care,
they can sure as heck mandate religion.

Remember, your socialist nanny knows best, 
don't you dare question him.

Oh, and don't let it bother you that you will no 
longer have the option of sueing the medical 
establishment for malpractice, because your 
nanny will not permit this under ObamaCare.


> May I ask: Do you even _know_ any Muslims?

Nope, and I do not know any other murderers either.

Or did you even read my post here that referred to
the website where the widely acclaimed Muslim 
religious leader said that all good Muslims should
kill us non-Muslim infidels, in order to make certain
that they (the Muslims)  assure their place in heaven.

We have some future under ObamaCare, don't we.  :(



> > If they keep   _too_    _much_   money for themselves,
> > a competitive insurance company will run them
> > out of business.
> >
> 
> 
> They grub for money any way they can. They collect payments for years 
> until the client tries to collect a benefit and try to find some excuse 
> to weasel out of paying. Only the richer clients have the resources to 
> fight denial of benefits. There is no competition to protect clients 
> from the weasels; only the fittest survive. Capitalism at work.

I assume we are talking about "supplemental" insurance, 
i.e.  for what medicare does  _not_  cover.

Never once has my insurance company even tried to deny 
my benefits, and I have dipped into supplemental 
quite heavily.


> And when did they all band together to...

You lost me, when did  _who_  "all band together"?


> "constantly run down our brand of capitalist
> democracy?"

So you deny that Obama runs down the USA in his 
speeches to foreign audiences, claiming the USA 
is at fault for all manner of world problems?

<rambling  right-wing/left-wing
                      finger-pointing  snipped>

In article
<wclark2-CF8C5A.17112927122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:

> > In article
> > <wclark2-C7DDF6.09503127122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> > William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > The lunacy in the current US system is the notion 
> > > that health care should be provided by private 
> > > insurance companies (whose business is based on 
> > > eliminating high risk clients), and linked to 
> > > employment. There is simply no logic 
> > > in that any more.
> > 
> > Faulty logic on your above statement.
> > 
> > Insurance companies do not provide health care,
> > the money comes from taxes.
> 
> Faulty logic from you. The insurance companies do not "juggle tax 
> money", they take money directly out of wages and salaries, on a system 
> that is not based on the insureds' income. That is 180 degrees out of 
> phase with the tax system. 



???  -  Not  MY  insurance company, they take their fee 
directly from my monthly payment.  
(AARP  supplemental)

Obviously faulty logic from you.

So far, they have paid me much more in medical benefits
than I spend on their premium payments.

I have been thinking of donating some money to them
so they will not go broke.

In article <hh8kat$c1g$1@news.albasani.net>, AV3
<arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I hope I don't become so senile that I would become a racist, fascistic 
> Conservative, campaigning to replace instruction about evolution in the 
> public schools with instruction about Scientific Creationism in the 
> manner of a true-blue Conservative like you.

You will, I used to be a lib in my younger days.

I was weaned on FDR, the greatest lib of all time.


Now if you need God, or the Easter Bunny, or the
Tooth Fairy, or a nanny-state government, all that
is fine with me, whatever pulls your trigger.

We all have our weird beliefs for the unexplainable
things in life.

Only thing that bugs me is when others use violence 
to impose their beliefs on others, as the Muslims do.

Muslims deny it of course, unless you really pin down
their religious leaders, as a reporter did in a post I
referenced in this thread earlier.

As regards evolution vs creationism, that has been 
raging for a long time.   Both sides can  "prove" 
their point.

What I find intriguing, is that when some guy
eventually "creates" a human from scratch, 
and that will surely happen, will we decide to
worship that guy as God?

The top-dog religious sect seems to be the violent
Muslims, there are a heck of a lot more of them 
than there are Christians.

Mark-

Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Tell me something else, Mark -- you never really commented on it when I
> mentioned it before -- why is that public safety (police, fire), and even
> public health (sanitation, food-and-drug safety), are activities that our
> state and federal governments can legitimately be involved with, without
> running the risk of plummeting our society into that Marxist Abyss, but
> health care is not? What allows public safety and public health to be
> considered "essential services" in a Capitalist Democracy, but not health
> care? Are there certain defining characteristics that apply and metrics we
> can use, or is it simply a matter of visceral wisdom, born of dogma and
> stoked by the likes of Limbaugh and Beck?

I'm keen on an answer to this too. Certain services are simply better
run by government rather than as a for-profit company. I only have to
look at our (New Zealand's) railway fiasco. In short: we sold our
national railway, the company that bought it ran it into the ground, and
we ended up bloody well buying it back just to save it.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> As regards evolution vs creationism, that has been 
> raging for a long time.   Both sides can  "prove" 
> their point.

No, the creationists can't actually. Not unless you define proof as
'believing really, really, really hard in something'. Sadly wishing
doesn't make it so.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article <C75D8EA8.4EDCD%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>,
 Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> In article 1pmdnR6B6uQKQ6nWnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@earthlink.com, Kurt Ullman at
> kurtullman@yahoo.com wrote on 12/25/09 10:47 AM:
> 
> ...
> ...
> > If 
> > you look at the polls, in the US, the number of people happy with THEIR
> > insurance runs about 80%. However much less about the system in general.
> > Sorta interesting that these numbers are pretty much in line with
> > polling that shows little support for Congress, but much higher support
> > for their personal CongressCritter. I am trying to figure out the
> > importance of that congruence (g).
> 
> Important point not often mentioned: Those who like their health plans the
> most are those who _use_ them the least.

   Probably like the polls for the CC.  Although I don't remember seeing 
that distinction in the polls. I shall have to go back and look

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article 

> > > 
> > > Faulty logic from you. The insurance companies do not "juggle tax 
> > > money", they take money directly out of wages and salaries, on a system 
> > > that is not based on the insureds' income. That is 180 degrees out of 
> > > phase with the tax system. 
> > 
> >    If you look at it the proper way, they do mess with tax money since 
> > the employer contribution is tax deductible. FWIW, it the single biggest 
> > tax deduction. 
> 
> Not to the individual, because it is not income based. Even more reason 
> why our taxes should not be handed to insurance companies to make money 
> from, especially when they will cut high risk taxpayers out of insurance.
    Of course it is. It is part of your salary, just deducted from it 
and then the deduction given to your employer. 



> >   That is largely because every state is different and you have to be 
> > licensed to operate in that state. Only a couple companies can afford to 
> > mess with the overhead of having to deal with 50 different states, with 
> > 50 different policy requirements, etc.
> 
> So the insurance companies divvy up the states between them so that only 
> a couple operate in each one. That way they can all gouge the public. If 
> we made health insurance federally regulated, instead of state 
> regulated, the consumer could then truly shop for the best deal 
> nationwide. That would acre the companies to death.

   Yeah right. Of course the costs associated with trying to operate in 
all 50 states, especially since many actually require the company to be 
domiciled there (thus giving you BC/BS of Indiana, BC/BS of Arizona, 
etc.) The companies did not seem to be arguing against Fed regulation, 
they would probably love it taking out all of the different 
requirements.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <z-ednf3APvQ_PaXWnZ2dnUVZ_sZi4p2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article 
> 
> > > > 
> > > > Faulty logic from you. The insurance companies do not "juggle tax 
> > > > money", they take money directly out of wages and salaries, on a system 
> > > > that is not based on the insureds' income. That is 180 degrees out of 
> > > > phase with the tax system. 
> > > 
> > >    If you look at it the proper way, they do mess with tax money since 
> > > the employer contribution is tax deductible. FWIW, it the single biggest 
> > > tax deduction. 
> > 
> > Not to the individual, because it is not income based. Even more reason 
> > why our taxes should not be handed to insurance companies to make money 
> > from, especially when they will cut high risk taxpayers out of insurance.
>     Of course it is. It is part of your salary, just deducted from it 
> and then the deduction given to your employer. 

Right, like the cost of my football tickets. Based on price for service, 
not on my income.
> 
> 
> 
> > >   That is largely because every state is different and you have to be 
> > > licensed to operate in that state. Only a couple companies can afford to 
> > > mess with the overhead of having to deal with 50 different states, with 
> > > 50 different policy requirements, etc.
> > 
> > So the insurance companies divvy up the states between them so that only 
> > a couple operate in each one. That way they can all gouge the public. If 
> > we made health insurance federally regulated, instead of state 
> > regulated, the consumer could then truly shop for the best deal 
> > nationwide. That would acre the companies to death.
> 
>    Yeah right. Of course the costs associated with trying to operate in 
> all 50 states, especially since many actually require the company to be 
> domiciled there (thus giving you BC/BS of Indiana, BC/BS of Arizona, 
> etc.) The companies did not seem to be arguing against Fed regulation, 
> they would probably love it taking out all of the different 
> requirements.

Why not? One BC/BS for the entire US - why would they oppose that? 
Unless, of course, they don't like the idea of having to compete with 
all the other insurance companies on a national level. Their CEO might 
have to take a cut in her $24M salary.

In article <281220090226506529%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> In article
> <wclark2-CF8C5A.17112927122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > > In article
> > > <wclark2-C7DDF6.09503127122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> > > William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The lunacy in the current US system is the notion 
> > > > that health care should be provided by private 
> > > > insurance companies (whose business is based on 
> > > > eliminating high risk clients), and linked to 
> > > > employment. There is simply no logic 
> > > > in that any more.
> > > 
> > > Faulty logic on your above statement.
> > > 
> > > Insurance companies do not provide health care,
> > > the money comes from taxes.
> > 
> > Faulty logic from you. The insurance companies do not "juggle tax 
> > money", they take money directly out of wages and salaries, on a system 
> > that is not based on the insureds' income. That is 180 degrees out of 
> > phase with the tax system. 
> 
> 
> 
> ???  -  Not  MY  insurance company, they take their fee 
> directly from my monthly payment.  
> (AARP  supplemental)
> 
> Obviously faulty logic from you.
> 
> So far, they have paid me much more in medical benefits
> than I spend on their premium payments.
> 
> I have been thinking of donating some money to them
> so they will not go broke.

Well, if you were working for a living, then you would be paying a 
monthly premium, like everyone else who is covered, out of your 
wages/salary.

I am sure they will welcome your donation.

In article 
<wclark2-AF5E08.08131428122009@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
 William Clark <wclark2@colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote:

> Why not? One BC/BS for the entire US - why would they oppose that? 
> Unless, of course, they don't like the idea of having to compete with 
> all the other insurance companies on a national level. Their CEO might 
> have to take a cut in her $24M salary.

Salary is only around $1 million. That is because under (Clinton-era) 
tax law, that is the most that can be deducted. This same law, passed in 
a bipartisan manner BTW, decided to put no such restrictions on stock 
options and other "performance based measures". The CongressCritters 
said this was to align the goals of the exeuctive with the goals of the 
shareholders.
     Of course what (inevitably) happened is that they were getting so 
little in salary to actually run the company and so much to run the 
books, that they inevitable happened. Probably exacerbated by otherwise 
normal people convincing themselves that most of their actions were in 
the interest of the shareholders, since Congress said so.
     I shudder at the outcomes of the new round of Congressional action 
where they say they want to align the goals of the executive with the 
goals of the shareholders.
      I also find it interesting that, as can be seen by the howling 
about the salary czar, that this is now an entitlement program.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <jollyroger-0C0FF0.10263526122009@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <009453e9$0$16943$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
>  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <261220090101539638%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
> >  Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> > > Doc'  told me I would have been a dead man in a few days
> > > if I had lived in Canada, I would have still been waiting
> > > in line to get approval for those expensive tests
> > > from my government nanny.
> > 
> > What a load of shit. If you guys get your death panels, Mark, it's guys 
> > like you whose names will percolate to the top.
> 
> The death panels are already here. They're just run by insurance 
> corporations rather than the government.

Second that. My neighbors, who had BC/BS at the time, had an infant son who 
developed Guillan-Barre Syndrome 2nd-ary to reaction to MMR shots. He was 
getting worse and local docs advised to take him to Nashville to the medical 
center for intensive care, likely to end up on a ventilator. After two days in 
ICU (not on ventilator but close), BC/BS told them they were not going to pay 
for any more hospitalization, and they ended up having to take him home against 
the advice of the doctors. They had to resuscitate him once themselves after 
they got home with him---More of that top-notch US healthcare in action!
-- 
Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.
Mark Twain

In article <0001HW.C7590826002CF88FB01029BF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> I do find it unfortunate that the "appropriate" sizes of servings have 
> increased dramatically during my lifetime. An example is that of Coca-Cola 
> which has changed from a 6 oz. size to a 12 oz. size and is now moving in the 
> direction of something in the range of 16 oz. And if you go to such as 
> McDonald's the emphasis is on size. But, as so many want to say, "It's not my 
> fault!"

Yeah, I don't know many people who require a burger larger than 1/4 pound, but 
you can go up to 1/2 pound at FFJ's (fast food joints), and then pile on extra 
calories with cheese, sauce, bacon....like you needed any more calories with a 
1/2-lb burger! Pull-eeaze!
And to ease their thirst with the 1-2 lb cardiac killers, people are swigging 
those 1-quart jars of Coke and then wondering why they are fat.
-- 
Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.
Mark Twain

In article z-edncLAPvTmAqXWnZ2dnUVZ_sZi4p2d@earthlink.com, Kurt Ullman at
kurtullman@yahoo.com wrote on 12/28/09 7:07 AM:

> In article <C75D8EA8.4EDCD%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>,
>  Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> In article 1pmdnR6B6uQKQ6nWnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@earthlink.com, Kurt Ullman at
>> kurtullman@yahoo.com wrote on 12/25/09 10:47 AM:
>> 
>> ...
>> ...
>>> If 
>>> you look at the polls, in the US, the number of people happy with THEIR
>>> insurance runs about 80%. However much less about the system in general.
>>> Sorta interesting that these numbers are pretty much in line with
>>> polling that shows little support for Congress, but much higher support
>>> for their personal CongressCritter. I am trying to figure out the
>>> importance of that congruence (g).
>> 
>> Important point not often mentioned: Those who like their health plans the
>> most are those who _use_ them the least.
> 
>    Probably like the polls for the CC.

CC?

> Although I don't remember seeing
> that distinction in the polls. I shall have to go back and look

I found a Washington Post article, "Health Insurance Industry Spins Data in
Fight Against Public Plan" (http://tinyurl.com/lu8frk), which mentions it ,
plus a whole lot more.

(I'm certain Mark and others will jump up and down and spit vitriolic doubts
about the validity of the article, inasmuch as it was in one of those
left-wing, media-controlled publications. But the data referenced is from a
Kaiser Family Foundation poll taken sometime in 2008. I could be wrong, but
I doubt that Kaiser is particularly influenced by the left-wing wingnuts
seeking to upset the Industry's applecart.)



-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

In article hhac5k$vq3$1@news.eternal-september.org, Su-Z-Q at
reply@this.group wrote on 12/28/09 8:34 AM:

> In article <jollyroger-0C0FF0.10263526122009@news.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <009453e9$0$16943$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
>>  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <261220090101539638%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
>>>  Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Doc'  told me I would have been a dead man in a few days
>>>> if I had lived in Canada, I would have still been waiting
>>>> in line to get approval for those expensive tests
>>>> from my government nanny.
>>> 
>>> What a load of shit. If you guys get your death panels, Mark, it's guys
>>> like you whose names will percolate to the top.
>> 
>> The death panels are already here. They're just run by insurance
>> corporations rather than the government.
> 
> Second that. My neighbors, who had BC/BS at the time, had an infant son who
> developed Guillan-Barre Syndrome 2nd-ary to reaction to MMR shots. He was
> getting worse and local docs advised to take him to Nashville to the medical
> center for intensive care, likely to end up on a ventilator. After two days in
> ICU (not on ventilator but close), BC/BS told them they were not going to pay
> for any more hospitalization, and they ended up having to take him home
> against 
> the advice of the doctors. They had to resuscitate him once themselves after
> they got home with him---More of that top-notch US healthcare in action!



At least they can rest easy at night, comforted by the knowledge that the
Government isn't involved, which no doubt would push us into that Marxist
Abyss that Mark has warned us about.

  
-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

In article <C75E5DCD.4EE1A%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>,
 Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> In article hhac5k$vq3$1@news.eternal-september.org, Su-Z-Q at
> reply@this.group wrote on 12/28/09 8:34 AM:
> 
> > In article <jollyroger-0C0FF0.10263526122009@news.individual.net>,
> >  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <009453e9$0$16943$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
> >>  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> In article <261220090101539638%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
> >>>  Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Doc'  told me I would have been a dead man in a few days
> >>>> if I had lived in Canada, I would have still been waiting
> >>>> in line to get approval for those expensive tests
> >>>> from my government nanny.
> >>> 
> >>> What a load of shit. If you guys get your death panels, Mark, it's guys
> >>> like you whose names will percolate to the top.
> >> 
> >> The death panels are already here. They're just run by insurance
> >> corporations rather than the government.
> > 
> > Second that. My neighbors, who had BC/BS at the time, had an infant son who
> > developed Guillan-Barre Syndrome 2nd-ary to reaction to MMR shots. He was
> > getting worse and local docs advised to take him to Nashville to the 
> > medical
> > center for intensive care, likely to end up on a ventilator. After two days 
> > in
> > ICU (not on ventilator but close), BC/BS told them they were not going to 
> > pay
> > for any more hospitalization, and they ended up having to take him home
> > against 
> > the advice of the doctors. They had to resuscitate him once themselves 
> > after
> > they got home with him---More of that top-notch US healthcare in action!
> 
> At least they can rest easy at night, comforted by the knowledge that the
> Government isn't involved, which no doubt would push us into that Marxist
> Abyss that Mark has warned us about.

You're kidding, right?

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <C75E5BD3.4EE18%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>,
 Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> >    Probably like the polls for the CC.
> 
> CC?

    Congress critters that I mentioned in the part that was there but I 
have deleted.  Sometimes I get too enamored with my own cuteness (g).

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article jollyroger-701268.12190128122009@news.individual.net, Jolly Roger
at jollyroger@pobox.com wrote on 12/28/09 1:19 PM:

> In article <C75E5DCD.4EE1A%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>,
>  Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> In article hhac5k$vq3$1@news.eternal-september.org, Su-Z-Q at
>> reply@this.group wrote on 12/28/09 8:34 AM:
>> 
>>> In article <jollyroger-0C0FF0.10263526122009@news.individual.net>,
>>>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <009453e9$0$16943$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
>>>>  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> In article <261220090101539638%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
>>>>>  Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Doc'  told me I would have been a dead man in a few days
>>>>>> if I had lived in Canada, I would have still been waiting
>>>>>> in line to get approval for those expensive tests
>>>>>> from my government nanny.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What a load of shit. If you guys get your death panels, Mark, it's guys
>>>>> like you whose names will percolate to the top.
>>>> 
>>>> The death panels are already here. They're just run by insurance
>>>> corporations rather than the government.
>>> 
>>> Second that. My neighbors, who had BC/BS at the time, had an infant son who
>>> developed Guillan-Barre Syndrome 2nd-ary to reaction to MMR shots. He was
>>> getting worse and local docs advised to take him to Nashville to the
>>> medical
>>> center for intensive care, likely to end up on a ventilator. After two days
>>> in
>>> ICU (not on ventilator but close), BC/BS told them they were not going to
>>> pay
>>> for any more hospitalization, and they ended up having to take him home
>>> against 
>>> the advice of the doctors. They had to resuscitate him once themselves
>>> after
>>> they got home with him---More of that top-notch US healthcare in action!
>> 
>> At least they can rest easy at night, comforted by the knowledge that the
>> Government isn't involved, which no doubt would push us into that Marxist
>> Abyss that Mark has warned us about.
> 
> You're kidding, right?


ROTFLMAO!

(Haven't you seen my last few posts, JR?)


-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

In article Pf6dneKw8tcDYqXWnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@earthlink.com, Kurt Ullman at
kurtullman@yahoo.com wrote on 12/28/09 1:57 PM:

> In article <C75E5BD3.4EE18%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>,
>  Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>    Probably like the polls for the CC.
>> 
>> CC?
> 
>     Congress critters that I mentioned in the part that was there but I
> have deleted.  Sometimes I get too enamored with my own cuteness (g).

Ah! I do recall seeing that reference in one of your posts. OK, "Kute Kurt."
;)

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

On Dec/28/2009 5:2655 AM, Mark Conrad wrote:
> In article<hh8kat$c1g$1@news.albasani.net>, AV3
> <arvimide@earthlink.net>  wrote:
>
>> I hope I don't become so senile that I would become a racist, fascistic
>> Conservative, campaigning to replace instruction about evolution in the
>> public schools with instruction about Scientific Creationism in the
>> manner of a true-blue Conservative like you.
>
> You will, I used to be a lib in my younger days.
>
> I was weaned on FDR, the greatest lib of all time.
>
>
> Now if you need God, or the Easter Bunny, or the
> Tooth Fairy, or a nanny-state government, all that
> is fine with me, whatever pulls your trigger.
>
> We all have our weird beliefs for the unexplainable
> things in life.
>
> ...
>
> As regards evolution vs creationism, that has been
> raging for a long time.   Both sides can  "prove"
> their point.
>


This is an example of hilariously sloppy Conservative thinking. It 
renders your thoughts about religion in general without merit for 
consideration, such as the following:


> What I find intriguing, is that when some guy
> eventually "creates" a human from scratch,
> and that will surely happen, will we decide to
> worship that guy as God?
>
> The top-dog religious sect seems to be the violent
> Muslims, there are a heck of a lot more of them
> than there are Christians.
>





-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

On Dec/27/2009 11:4206 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
> AV3 wrote:
>> Not forced down anyone's throat. There was an election. Obama promised
>> to support Congress in passing health care reform pretty much like
>> what the House of Representatives has recently passed. In that
>> election Obama
>
> He also promised to do something about "ear-marks" which make up
> a large percentage of what the House and Senate have passed.
>


This is not relevant to the merits or demerits of the health care bill. 
I remember the "pork" issue characterizing thirty unbroken years of 
Democratic control of Congress, followed by the Republicans' Contract on 
America, which promised relief but resulted in "earmarks" out of control 
and budget manipulation to hide the cost of the Iraq war in an already 
unbalanced budget. And here they come again despite campaign promises.


The real cause is a defect in the Constitution, which makes 
representatives dependant on the favor of the voters in their electing 
district or state.  The British system of party-appointed candidates 
does not solve this problems, as we may observe from their recent 
scandalous exploitation of expense privileges. I don't know of a 
solution, but, however regrettable, it is a separate issue and no 
reflection on the health care issue itself.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

In article <hhbd6l$qpc$1@news.albasani.net>,
 AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> wrote:


> 
> This is not relevant to the merits or demerits of the health care bill. 
   Actually it does since there are many earmarks (for instance those 
Western states that get extra money so they don't have to pay all of the 
extra MCaid).

> I remember the "pork" issue characterizing thirty unbroken years of 
> Democratic control of Congress, followed by the Republicans' Contract on 
> America, which promised relief but resulted in "earmarks" out of control 
> and budget manipulation to hide the cost of the Iraq war in an already 
> unbalanced budget. And here they come again despite campaign promises.

  Intereting, during the first 5 years of the contract, the annual 
percentages of increase actually went down. The next 5 years (and 
continuing) the percentages of increase actually went above the 5 years 
before the CwA. The GOP figured out how much fun it was to spend money 
and there was a synergistic effect with both parties trying to outspend 
the other. 

> 
> 
> The real cause is a defect in the Constitution, which makes 
> representatives dependant on the favor of the voters in their electing 
> district or state.  The British system of party-appointed candidates 
> does not solve this problems, as we may observe from their recent 
> scandalous exploitation of expense privileges. I don't know of a 
> solution, but, however regrettable, it is a separate issue and no 
> reflection on the health care issue itself.

  Yeah we can't have all those riff raff actually voting for their reps. 
Actually it would be a great help if the powers that be had to actually 
come up with Congressional districts that were competitive. Each decade 
after the census, we do the Incumbent Full Employ Act and call it 
redistricting.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

AV3 wrote:
> On Dec/27/2009 11:4206 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
>> He also promised to do something about "ear-marks" which make up
>> a large percentage of what the House and Senate have passed.
> 
> This is not relevant to the merits or demerits of the health care bill. 

It most certainly is relevant.  We could have had a hundred page
reform bill passed nearly unanimously months ago, if those claiming
to represent us had agreed to table any point on which consensus
couldn't be reached quickly.  Instead, we have thousands of pages
which almost half of both Congress and the country is fighting bitterly.

In other words, we could have, months ago, had _some_ reform.
Everyone would still say it's inadequate, but everyone (almost)
would agree it's a start, and everyone (almost) would like it.

And THEN we could argue about the hard parts.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Unusual ways of learning?
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=96

In article <C75E6C6B.4EE20%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>,
 Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> ROTFLMAO!
> 
> (Haven't you seen my last few posts, JR?)

: D  

Sorry. I'm picking and choosing, not reading the entire thread. 

Bad me!

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <1jbgkmb.gw8k7z1f81dp2N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> Certain services are simply better run by 
> government rather than as a for-profit company.

That is what the main topic of 
this entire thread is about.

Heck, even hard cases like me would support 
"switching" control of health care over to 
government/political control if we really 
thought that the actual effect of the new 
health bill would be what we the people 
expected it to be.

There is the possibility that if the health 
bill was rotten in actual practice, that we 
might be able to switck back again, like you
New Zealanders did with your railroad;
in our case losing trillions of dollars in the
process, and financially ruining the USA,
which would make a lot of Muslims very 
happy.

hmm,  Obama has Muslim leanings, doesn't he.


Now I have a question for all here.

If we made a pie chart about who presently 
REALLY  controls health care right now,
what would the chart look like?

Many libs here claim that say 90% of health care
is controlled by the evil insurance companies.

Others claim that the private doctors have a large
amount of control, say 60 %.

Others claim that government agencies like 
medicare and medicaid call the shots, say 60%.

Others claim the big drug companies do, say 52%

Yet others claim the malpractice lawyers control
things, I suspect a lot of doctors who have to pay 
$100,000 yearly for malpractice insurance
might agree with this view.

I read about a Florida gynecologist having to pay
$250,000 yearly for insurance.

The percentages just do not add up, can we clueless
peons get people in this thread to somewhat agree 
on who actually calls the shots?

I will start it, here is my guess:

40% goverment agencies, medicare, medicaid, FDA, etc.
20% private doctors
18% private insurance companies
12% lawyers
7% drug companies
3% misc  medical labs etc.

Notice I already have government control as the
top dog in running health care, very few things 
would work in our system without medicare 
money greasing the skids.

So the unfortunate doctors, in my view, have 
very little to say about running their own 
business.  Contrast this with say a plumber,
who controls maybe 80% of what goes on
in his business.
          
Mark-

In article <231220092058574529%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> We could easily make health care much worse by
> picking the wrong people to regulate it.
> 
> What is your suggestion for that gnarly problem?

I've been following this thread and will briefly delurk to provide 
another perspective. 

I've been practicing neurosurgery for 30 years, and  every male member 
of my family has been a doctor since  the 1860s, so I have some 
historical perspective. 

There is no simple solution, private or public sector, to providing 
healthcare, let alone healthcare to all.

So here's the perspective of one practicing doctor:

Health insurance was rare prior to the 1930s. Medicine just wasn't 
terribly effective, and with the exception of surgery, was fairly 
inexpensive. Doctors functioned as a mini-bank for their patients, 
charging the poor little or nothing, and the wealthy up to 10 times the 
fee for the poor. A major operation would typically cost a month of a 
man's salary. When the Depression hit, hospitals established the Blue 
Cross programs to try to ensure that they would receive some 
compensation for their services, and doctors established the Blue Shield 
programs with similar motives.  When wage and price controls were in 
effect during and after WWII employers sweetened salaries by providing 
insurance "off salary". During this period and up until Medicare was 
established in the mid 1960s, the rate of medical inflation closely 
tracked the general inflation rate. After the Medicare act, the rate of 
inflation in the medical sector of the economy began to diverge sharply 
from the overall rate of inflation.  Few remember that during the Nixon 
administration there were wage and price controls, and that these were 
lifted from the medical sector of the economy last. The market 
distortion of divorcing the payor from the purchaser of insurance was 
well established by the time of the economic slump of the early 1980s. 
During the Reagan years the concept of promoting medicine as a 
competitive business rather than a profession was pushed hard and we saw 
the rise of for-profit medical corporations - hospitals and insurance - 
and the decline of medicine as a profession. At the same time, a 
parasitic class of people whose primary concern was financial saw that 
money was still flowing in the medical sector of the economy, and the 
definition of medical care began to be defined much more widely. 
Lobbying to expand what was considered to be necessary treatment was 
largely successful, and new treatable conditions were defined. Gradually 
Medicine became an "industry", and we all became its widgets. At the 
same time, in the 1975-85 period saw a dramatic expansion of expensive 
technology (CT and MRI) which made medicine much more effective and 
allowed screening of populations with minimal risk compared to older 
invasive diagnostic procedures. The insurance companies fought back with 
managed care (another idea of the Nixon administration) and hiring 
"deny-ers" who work with a cookbook script of what to allow or deny. 
We've all heard of the lousy decisions some managed care companies have 
made, and their repercussions. What hasn't made the news is that the 
managed care companies which have tried to maintain a reasonably good 
reputation have suffered from the problem of increased costs to about 
the same extent as the non-profit and for-profit insurers have.  

So there's a lot of blame to go around on both sides of the political 
spectrum for the fix we're now in. 

As a doctor I have to think about my cost of providing medical care. I 
try not to think about it more frequently than every two months, so as 
to avoid depression and avoid skewing any decisions.  Medicare covers 
about 30% of my fees, welfare covers about 20%; I  haven't raised my 
fees in 8 years, because the only effect of doing so would be to write 
off more.  I currently collect about 47% of my charges. The cost of my 
liability insurance is 5 times what it was when I started practice, and 
dealing with insurance companies' telephonic deny-ers has forced the 
doubling of my office staff. A few years ago I took home less one year 
than my liability insurer did from my labors. Not because of my history 
- I've been sued twice in 30 years, which is about 30% of the average 
for neurosurgeons. 

I've read portions of the house and senate bills, and I find them 
discouraging. Both versions seem to promote medicine as a big business, 
rather than a personal service, which I prefer to think it is, or ought 
to be. Both versions and also the "public option" directly or indirectly 
will result in downward pressure on providers of medical care - doctors 
and nurses - and none of the solutions seems to address adequately all  
of the parasites attached to the money flow in the medical sector of the 
economy. The result is going to be a decline in the average quality of 
medical school applicants, which my friends who are residency directors 
tell me is already occurring. 

Portions of the legislation already passed this year relate to 
electronic records, with payment incentives and penalties relating to 
their "significant use". The government hasn't clarified which EMRs will 
qualify or exactly what "significant use" means beyond electronic 
prescribing, but sharing some of the doctor's patient data with the 
government is expected to be part of the program. So whoever the payor 
is, there will be pressure on doctors to conform to a standard which is 
financially oriented.

Whatever happens, a few things are certain.  The increased complexity of 
medical care and medical technology costs will forever prevent getting 
back to the day when patients could individually afford to pay for their 
medical care when they are sick. So some form of risk sharing is 
necessary, whether governmental or private. In a few years it's going to 
be harder to actually see the doctor; it will be the age of mid-level 
practitioners. And either medical care will cost more than it does now, 
or access to some treatments is going to be curtailed, either at their 
development stage or at the delivery stage. We still have a somewhat 
active press in this country, and it may need to be muzzled, because the 
cheapest treatment is the one no one has ever heard of.  We are entering 
an age of scarcity of many resources, medical care is just one of them. 

Learn how to try to stay healthy.  And hope for the best. 

Some problems have no solution, some stories do not have a happy ending.

Back to lurking.

(and per the original topic, I like Safari)

-- 
armackay
Alex MacKay

In article <see.signature-F2A243.23254828122009@news.qwest.net>,
somnambulist <see.signature@uswest.net> wrote:

> > What is your suggestion for that gnarly problem?
> 
> I've been following this thread and will briefly delurk to provide 
> another perspective. 
> 
> I've been practicing neurosurgery for 30 years, and  every male member 
> of my family has been a doctor since  the 1860s, so I have some 
> historical perspective. 
> 
> There is no simple solution, private or public sector, to providing 
> healthcare, let alone healthcare to all.
> 
> So here's the perspective of one practicing doctor:

<snipped very interesting perspective>

Thank you very much for your post.

Parts of your post are very depressing to me, the part
where you post that medicine is no longer a profession,
but is now an industry.  I find that very sad, trying to 
use a doctor as a mere hired hand to follow orders,
rather than a respected professional.

Isn't that what communism is all about?

"each person works and is paid by their abilities 
    and needs, as determined by czar Obama"

"My name is Obama,  you  _will_  bore open this man's
skull with my politically-approved low cost portable 
drill from WalMart, repair his aneurysm, and oh yes,
sweep the floor of the stockroom afterwards".

From the little I read, the new health bill is attempting
to herd all the doctors together into one large cattle call,
uprooting them from their private professional practices
with a combination of penalties and encentives,
because that makes it a lot easier for the CC
(Congress Critters) to control them as hired hands 
when the doctors are in one large standardized group
like the Kaiser-Permanente group.

I actually wonder why anyone would choose to pursue 
a medical career these days, there is little incentive.

Mark-

In article <hhbkgp$nq1$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> AV3 wrote:
> > On Dec/27/2009 11:4206 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
> >> He also promised to do something about "ear-marks" which make up
> >> a large percentage of what the House and Senate have passed.
> > 
> > This is not relevant to the merits or demerits of the health care bill. 
> 
> It most certainly is relevant.  We could have had a hundred page
> reform bill passed nearly unanimously months ago, if those claiming
> to represent us had agreed to table any point on which consensus
> couldn't be reached quickly.  Instead, we have thousands of pages
> which almost half of both Congress and the country is fighting bitterly.
> 
> In other words, we could have, months ago, had _some_ reform.
> Everyone would still say it's inadequate, but everyone (almost)
> would agree it's a start, and everyone (almost) would like it.
> 
> And THEN we could argue about the hard parts.

   Actually years ago. The lesson that was learned from the Clinton 
attempt was that the American public wanted this done in public instead 
of having an entire plan hatched and presented from the White House. 
What SHOULD have been learned (and apparently still hasn't) is that the 
American Public wants incremental change not fundamental change.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <281220092026079190%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:


>
> 
> If we made a pie chart about who presently 
> REALLY  controls health care right now,
> what would the chart look like?

   Ask and ye shall receive:
http://lahealthaction.org/library/HealthCareCosts07.pdf

Actually a whole bunch of really neat pie charts. 
     This is from 2005, but the %ages are fairly stable. 
One personal caveat on the chart about inflation. There are generally 
three parts of health care inflation, that aren't broken out. One is 
core or CPI inflation (what the general economy is experiencing). Two is 
case load inflation (extra demand and thus some demand-related inflation 
that comes from an aging population that requires more and more 
expensive treatment) and the "excess" inflation which is basically any 
left over. 


>

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <291220090133084132%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> In article <see.signature-F2A243.23254828122009@news.qwest.net>,
> somnambulist <see.signature@uswest.net> wrote:
> 
> > > What is your suggestion for that gnarly problem?
> > 
> > I've been following this thread and will briefly delurk to provide 
> > another perspective. 
> > 
> > I've been practicing neurosurgery for 30 years, and  every male member 
> > of my family has been a doctor since  the 1860s, so I have some 
> > historical perspective. 
> > 
> > There is no simple solution, private or public sector, to providing 
> > healthcare, let alone healthcare to all.
> > 
> > So here's the perspective of one practicing doctor:
> 
> <snipped very interesting perspective>
> 
> Thank you very much for your post.
> 
> Parts of your post are very depressing to me, the part
> where you post that medicine is no longer a profession,
> but is now an industry.  I find that very sad, trying to 
> use a doctor as a mere hired hand to follow orders,
> rather than a respected professional.
> 
> Isn't that what communism is all about?

Indeed. I find it demeaning to the entire medical profession when the Big Pharma 
infomercials end by saying, "Ask your PRESCRIBER..." They might as well be 
saying, "Ask your legal dope peddler..." from where I sit.
-- 
Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.
Mark Twain

In article <hhcv9i$t2i$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Su-Z-Q <reply@this.group> wrote:

> Indeed. I find it demeaning to the entire medical profession when the Big 
> Pharma 
> infomercials end by saying, "Ask your PRESCRIBER..." They might as well be 
> saying, "Ask your legal dope peddler..." from where I sit.

We make fun of that in our house too, "ask your _prescriber_?" we say, 
"didn't he go to jail?"

To be fair, though, a lot of primary care is handled by nurse 
practitioners, both in the US and Canada, and they _aren't_ doctors and 
teevee commercial content is pretty much controlled by the lawyers 
representing the product.

Don't try this at home.
Do not attempt.
We told you.
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

On Dec/28/2009 8:0342 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
> AV3 wrote:
>> On Dec/27/2009 11:4206 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
>>> He also promised to do something about "ear-marks" which make up
>>> a large percentage of what the House and Senate have passed.
>>
>> This is not relevant to the merits or demerits of the health care bill.
>
> It most certainly is relevant. We could have had a hundred page
> reform bill passed nearly unanimously months ago, if those claiming
> to represent us had agreed to table any point on which consensus
> couldn't be reached quickly. Instead, we have thousands of pages
> which almost half of both Congress and the country is fighting bitterly.
>
> In other words, we could have, months ago, had _some_ reform.
> Everyone would still say it's inadequate, but everyone (almost)
> would agree it's a start, and everyone (almost) would like it.
>
> And THEN we could argue about the hard parts.
>


Obama didn't run on offering the lowest common denominator of a health 
policy, he promised to reverse the increasing deprivation of coverage 
and to extend coverage as widely as possible. He has the majority for 
himself and his party in Congress to do it, and they are doing it. If 
what they do is unsatisfactory to the public, the next elections should 
tell us about it. A piecemeal, consensus process would change nothing 
and satisfy only those who want no effective change.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

In article <009849df$0$8149$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates
<warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> We make fun of that in our house too, "ask your _prescriber_?" we say, 
> "didn't he go to jail?"
> 
> To be fair, though, a lot of primary care is handled by nurse 
> practitioners, both in the US and Canada, 
> and they _aren't_ doctors and ...

Yeah, my secondary insurance company (whoops, I said
those nasty words "insurance company") - - - provides a 
free 24hr/365day  nurse help line for me to use, those 
gals know their business.

I had the chronic runs for a month, finally got tired 
of them, hated to go to my regular doctor because she 
zaps the taxpayers $100 if I so much as open the door
to her office to say hello.

Called my free nurse help line, followed their advice,
everything was golden.

Well, almost golden, their advice worked too well, 
someone jammed a plug up my arse.

Not to worry, I will call back, but this time will 
talk to the nursey in charge of plugs.

Mark-

In article <ceqdnScWbOCYc6TWnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt
Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > If we made a pie chart about who presently 
> > REALLY  controls health care right now,
> > what would the chart look like?
> 
>    Ask and ye shall receive:
> http://lahealthaction.org/library/HealthCareCosts07.pdf


Wow! - thanks, those year 2005 charts are real 
eye-openers.

Appears that right now in 2009 that the money spent
on health care per person, per year, is $8,000

Another thing I was not aware of was how big a 
financial hit that private business is paying to 
finance all this crap.


Should be interesting to see how these charts change 
when our communist health czar Obama puts his plan
into effect, shortly.

Mark-

In article <291220090923329330%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> Not to worry, I will call back, but this time will 
> talk to the nursey in charge of plugs.
> 
Mark, please, I beg you, don't tell us any more about your plumbing.

-- 
dorayme

In article <291220090923329330%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
 Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:

> Yeah, my secondary insurance company (whoops, I said
> those nasty words "insurance company") - - - provides a 
> free 24hr/365day  nurse help line for me to use, those 
> gals know their business

Well, okay. Our communist Ontario health service provides exactly the 
same thing, with an 800 number.
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

In article 291220090133084132%aeiou@mostly.invalid, Mark Conrad at
aeiou@mostly.invalid wrote on 12/29/09 4:33 AM:

> In article <see.signature-F2A243.23254828122009@news.qwest.net>,
> somnambulist <see.signature@uswest.net> wrote:
> 
>>> What is your suggestion for that gnarly problem?
>> 
>> I've been following this thread and will briefly delurk to provide
>> another perspective.
>> 
>> I've been practicing neurosurgery for 30 years, and  every male member
>> of my family has been a doctor since  the 1860s, so I have some
>> historical perspective.
>> 
>> There is no simple solution, private or public sector, to providing
>> healthcare, let alone healthcare to all.
>> 
>> So here's the perspective of one practicing doctor:
> 
> <snipped very interesting perspective>
> 
> Thank you very much for your post.
> 
> Parts of your post are very depressing to me, the part
> where you post that medicine is no longer a profession,
> but is now an industry.  I find that very sad, trying to
> use a doctor as a mere hired hand to follow orders,
> rather than a respected professional.
> 
> Isn't that what communism is all about?


Yeah, Mark...that's what communism is all about. <sheesh>

 
> "each person works and is paid by their abilities
>     and needs, as determined by czar Obama"

"Obamacare" and "czar Obama?" Didn't Rush, et. al. come up with those
derogatory terms? Name calling and rumor-mongering -- Obama is a
terrorist-Muslim sympathizer, who isn't even an American citizen! -- is a
favorite technique that the right-wing wingnits love to use to paint people
into right-wing defined stereotypes, to incite and manipulate all of their
mindless followers and supporters.

 
> "My name is Obama,  you  _will_  bore open this man's
> skull with my politically-approved low cost portable
> drill from WalMart, repair his aneurysm, and oh yes,
> sweep the floor of the stockroom afterwards".

Writing a book called "The World According to Mark?"
 
> From the little I read, the new health bill is attempting

You've read very little, and understand even less.

> to herd all the doctors together into one large cattle call,
> uprooting them from their private professional practices
> with a combination of penalties and encentives,
> because that makes it a lot easier for the CC
> (Congress Critters) to control them as hired hands
> when the doctors are in one large standardized group
> like the Kaiser-Permanente group.

Yeah...that group is suspected of planning to undermine Democracy too. After
all, it has the very undemocratic, foreign monarch name "Kaiser" in it.
(Hmmm...I bet those Kaisers were all closet Nazis, too.)
 
> I actually wonder why anyone would choose to pursue
> a medical career these days, there is little incentive.
> 
> Mark-

Medical professionals began to lose their independence as private
practitioners years ago when HMOs began to proliferate. (Are the unregulated
HMOs part of the Communist Conspiracy? I thought they were part of the
Corporate Dictum.) 

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

In article hhd7jm$lbm$1@news.albasani.net, AV3 at arvimide@earthlink.net
wrote on 12/29/09 10:35 AM:

> On Dec/28/2009 8:0342 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
>> AV3 wrote:
>>> On Dec/27/2009 11:4206 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
>>>> He also promised to do something about "ear-marks" which make up
>>>> a large percentage of what the House and Senate have passed.
>>> 
>>> This is not relevant to the merits or demerits of the health care bill.
>> 
>> It most certainly is relevant. We could have had a hundred page
>> reform bill passed nearly unanimously months ago, if those claiming
>> to represent us had agreed to table any point on which consensus
>> couldn't be reached quickly. Instead, we have thousands of pages
>> which almost half of both Congress and the country is fighting bitterly.
>> 
>> In other words, we could have, months ago, had _some_ reform.
>> Everyone would still say it's inadequate, but everyone (almost)
>> would agree it's a start, and everyone (almost) would like it.
>> 
>> And THEN we could argue about the hard parts.
>> 
> 
> 
> Obama didn't run on offering the lowest common denominator of a health
> policy, he promised to reverse the increasing deprivation of coverage
> and to extend coverage as widely as possible. He has the majority for
> himself and his party in Congress to do it, and they are doing it. If
> what they do is unsatisfactory to the public, the next elections should
> tell us about it. A piecemeal, consensus process would change nothing
> and satisfy only those who want no effective change.
> 


You just don't understand: Providing affordable health care to every citizen
as a fundamental right is a Muslim/Communist plot to undermine our
Capitalist Democracy.

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

In article doraymeRidThis-098629.08205230122009@news.albasani.net, dorayme
at doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au wrote on 12/29/09 4:20 PM:

> In article <291220090923329330%aeiou@mostly.invalid>,
>  Mark Conrad <aeiou@mostly.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Not to worry, I will call back, but this time will
>> talk to the nursey in charge of plugs.
>> 
> Mark, please, I beg you, don't tell us any more about your plumbing.

Well, it might provide some insight into his full-of-shit statements,
claims, and allegations.

-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

AV3 wrote:
> tell us about it. A piecemeal, consensus process would change nothing 
> and satisfy only those who want no effective change.

It might also satisfy those of us who would rather see _some_ change
than fifteen months of arguing and a thousand pages of pork.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   "But, Professor! I didn't plagiarize! I paid someone to
    write the essay for me, and that person plagiarized!"
               -- from http://rateyourstudents.blogspot.com

In article <hhd7jm$lbm$1@news.albasani.net>, AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> 
wrote:

> Obama didn't run on offering the lowest common denominator of a health 
> policy, he promised to reverse the increasing deprivation of coverage 
> and to extend coverage as widely as possible. He has the majority for 
> himself and his party in Congress to do it, and they are doing it. If 
> what they do is unsatisfactory to the public, the next elections should 
> tell us about it. A piecemeal, consensus process would change nothing 
> and satisfy only those who want no effective change.

Well, we hear a lot of grousing but it seems all of it is coming from the people 
who already HAVE health insurance. I'd like to hear some of the folks who've 
been surviving WITHOUT insurance comment on the planned changes.
-- 
Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.
Mark Twain

In article <hhfd3j$5u7$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Su-Z-Q <reply@this.group> wrote:

> In article <hhd7jm$lbm$1@news.albasani.net>, AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> > Obama didn't run on offering the lowest common denominator of a health 
> > policy, he promised to reverse the increasing deprivation of coverage 
> > and to extend coverage as widely as possible. He has the majority for 
> > himself and his party in Congress to do it, and they are doing it. If 
> > what they do is unsatisfactory to the public, the next elections should 
> > tell us about it. A piecemeal, consensus process would change nothing 
> > and satisfy only those who want no effective change.
> 
> Well, we hear a lot of grousing but it seems all of it is coming from the 
> people 
> who already HAVE health insurance. I'd like to hear some of the folks who've 
> been surviving WITHOUT insurance comment on the planned changes.

   I'd like someone who has survived MedicAid also comment. We already 
know that the premier Federal program (MCare) is going bankrupt, has so 
many holes that people are almost required to buy gap insurance, and 
pays providers so little that patients are having problems finding docs 
who will take on new Mcare patients.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <00abc155$0$8187$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Warren Oates
<warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yeah, my secondary insurance company (whoops, I said
> > those nasty words "insurance company") - - - provides a 
> > free 24hr/365day  nurse help line for me to use, those 
> > gals know their business
> 
> Well, okay. Our communist Ontario health service provides 
> exactly the same thing, with an 800 number.

Now now, you Canadians are not true communists 
yet, not until you have a czar to oversee your Ontario
health service.

We have a  czar-in-waiting  here in the US, so we are
closer to being commies than you are.

Actually, we are probably more "socialized" than you 
are, we just hate to admit it.

We like to think that individual citizens are running 
the USA, but real power seems to be slipping away 
from citizens, government gangs seem to control 
everything lately, they call themselves "committees".

Mark-

In article <C75FEFA5.4EF3F%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>,
Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> > Parts of your post are very depressing to me, the part
> > where you post that medicine is no longer a profession,
> > but is now an industry.  I find that very sad, trying to
> > use a doctor as a mere hired hand to follow orders,
> > rather than a respected professional.
> > 
> > Isn't that what communism is all about?
> 
> 
> Yeah, Mark...that's what communism is all about. <sheesh>

For the benefit of the flaming libs who attach their own
meaning to the word "communism", I now include a part of
the   _dictionary_   definition of that word:

communism  (noun)
    "...and each person works and is paid according to their 
abilities and needs"

Sounds exactly like ObamaCare to me, all powerful gangs
of politicians  (committees) ,  111 new committees, 
decide exactly what the abilities and needs of everyone 
associated with health care are, and pays accordingly.

Now you can spin ObamaCare any way you want, but 
the fact remains that it dooms free enterprise, which 
is why individual doctors are being bludgeoned into 
oblivion, and the state is taking over every 
important aspect of health care.

Read the full definition of communism, you will see it is
worded that communism considers free enterprise as 
its mortal enemy, something to be obliterated, 
according to the father of communism, Karl Marx.

ObamaCare health bill does a pretty good job of 
regulating the hell out of health care, taking decisions
out of the hands of individual doctors, on the assumption 
that letting a politician decide a health issue is somehow 
better than letting a professional doctor decide the same 
issue.

That just does not make sense to me.

Mark-

On Dec/30/2009 12:0931 AM, Wes Groleau wrote:
> AV3 wrote:
>> tell us about it. A piecemeal, consensus process would change nothing
>> and satisfy only those who want no effective change.
>
> It might also satisfy those of us who would rather see _some_ change
> than fifteen months of arguing and a thousand pages of pork.
>


John McCain campaigned for some change, and Barak Obama campaigned for 
more substantial change. Obama beat him by a decisive majority and 
should be congratulated for keeping his promise. Few expected him to 
adopt McCain's mealy-mouthed policy on health care reform just to avoid 
argument. Arguing is a two-sided affair, so there is no blaming just one 
side for carrying it on. Persistence has won out at the expense of time 
and pork. That is how our Congress works, for better or worse.


-- 
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>    ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net>   ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/    ||
||    Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso  ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

"What Health Care Reform Will Mean For You"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/228630


Comments?    Fair Review?

Mark-

In article 301220090453150847%aeiou@mostly.invalid, Mark Conrad at
aeiou@mostly.invalid wrote on 12/30/09 7:53 AM:

> In article <C75FEFA5.4EF3F%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>,
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> Parts of your post are very depressing to me, the part
>>> where you post that medicine is no longer a profession,
>>> but is now an industry.  I find that very sad, trying to
>>> use a doctor as a mere hired hand to follow orders,
>>> rather than a respected professional.
>>> 
>>> Isn't that what communism is all about?
>> 
>> 
>> Yeah, Mark...that's what communism is all about. <sheesh>
> 
> For the benefit of the flaming libs who attach their own
> meaning to the word "communism", I now include a part of
> the   _dictionary_   definition of that word:
> 
> communism  (noun)
>     "...and each person works and is paid according to their
> abilities and needs"
> 
> Sounds exactly like ObamaCare to me, all powerful gangs
> of politicians  (committees) ,  111 new committees,
> decide exactly what the abilities and needs of everyone
> associated with health care are, and pays accordingly.
> 
> Now you can spin ObamaCare any way you want, but
> the fact remains that it dooms free enterprise, which
> is why individual doctors are being bludgeoned into
> oblivion, and the state is taking over every
> important aspect of health care.
> 
> Read the full definition of communism, you will see it is
> worded that communism considers free enterprise as
> its mortal enemy, something to be obliterated,
> according to the father of communism, Karl Marx.


All you seem programmed to do is parrot the name-calling, labeling, insults,
lies, and ill-informed pronouncements of the likes of Limbaugh and Beck.
 
> ObamaCare health bill does a pretty good job of
> regulating the hell out of health care,


Right now, Mark, the Insurance Industry is totally _un_regulated -- free of
the "shackles" of those (Communist-inspired?) anti-trust laws.


> taking decisions
> out of the hands of individual doctors, on the assumption
> that letting a politician decide a health issue is somehow
> better than letting a professional doctor decide the same
> issue.

The insult of that lie is compounded by the injury of the truth: Currently,
such decisions are being made by the bureaucrats who run the insurance
companies and HMOs, _not_ the health-care professionals.

The irony of it all, Mark, is that most of the crap that the right-wing has
been throwing smacks of what a psychiatrist would call "projection." The
vehemence of the right-wingers can be characterized by borrowing from Queen
Gertrude: "The Right Wing doth protest too much, methinks."

 
> That just does not make sense to me.

I don't want _any_ bureaucrat to get between me and my physician. But,
_unlike you,_ I don't restrict that to those who work for the Government.

 
> Mark-

Here are some key provisions (in no particular order) of the
cobbled-together legislation:

* Prohibits health insurers from:
  - refusing coverage based on patients' medical histories.
  - charging different rates based on patients' medical histories or gender.

* Includes:    
  - a subsidy to low- and middle-income Americans to help buy insurance.
  - a central "health insurance exchange" (where the public can compare
    policies and rates).
  - a government-run insurance plan ("public option").

* Requires most Americans to carry qualifying health insurance coverage.
* Repeals insurance companies' exemption from anti-trust laws.
* Establishes minimum standards for qualified health benefit plans.
* Requires most employers to provide coverage for their employees.
* Restricts abortion coverage in insurance plans that use federal funds.
* Expands Medicaid to include more low-income Americans.


Now help me out, Mark: Which part of all of this qualifies as "Communism?"
Anticipating your _possible_ response: If you're going to point to the
"public option," then please explain to me how Government-sponsorship of an
additional insurance plan, designed to compete with (and, in a very
Capitalist manner, thereby provide additional consumer choice) the
Industry's "private options" constitutes Communism? Or are you going to
assert some variation/derivative of that age-old and long-ago discredited
"Domino Theory" that even the Limbaugh/Beck Crowd hasn't (yet) attempted to
assert? 



-- 
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)

Nick Naym wrote:
> "public option," then please explain to me how Government-sponsorship of an
> additional insurance plan, designed to compete with (and, in a very
> Capitalist manner, thereby provide additional consumer choice) the

If it's designed to compete with them and succeeds, VERY good.
But if it's designed to put them out of business (or if it does so
without being "designed" to) then very bad.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Why some kids act strange
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1491

In article <see.signature-F2A243.23254828122009@news.qwest.net>,
 somnambulist <see.signature@uswest.net> wrote:
....
> Portions of the legislation already passed this year relate to 
> electronic records, with payment incentives and penalties relating to 
> their "significant use". The government hasn't clarified which EMRs will 
> qualify or exactly what "significant use" means
,,,

In case you're interested, CMS today published the proposed rules, which 
may raise some interesting issues of privacy, etc:
<http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=3564&intNu
mPerPage=10&checkDate=&checkKey=&srchType=1&numDays=3500&srchOpt=0&srchDa
ta=&keywordType=All&chkNewsType=6&intPage=&showAll=&pYear=&year=&desc=&cb
oOrder=date>
(watch the wrap)

An excerpt:

"In 2012, CMS proposes requiring the direct submission of clinical 
quality measures to CMS (or to the states for Medicaid EPs and 
hospitals) through certified EHR technology.� CMS recognizes that for 
clinical quality reporting to become routine, the administrative burden 
of reporting must be reduced. By using certified EHR technology to 
report information on clinical quality measures electronically to a 
health information network, a state, CMS, or a registry, the burden on 
providers that are gathering the data and transmitting them will be 
greatly reduced.� The burden of generating the necessary information for 
the provider to then use the information to improve health care quality, 
efficiency, and patient safety will also be reduced.
"
This sounds like automatic (opaque?) excerpting of medical records.  The 
goal of improving medical care is laudable. The devil is in the details, 
and the road to Hell is sometimes paved with good intentions.

-- 
armackay

In article <C76182E9.4F025%nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid>,
 Nick Naym <nicknaym@_remove_this_gmail.com.invalid> wrote:


> > ObamaCare health bill does a pretty good job of
> > regulating the hell out of health care,
> 
> 
> Right now, Mark, the Insurance Industry is totally _un_regulated -- free of
> the "shackles" of those (Communist-inspired?) anti-trust laws.
   That is BS. Insurance including health is one of the most highly 
regulated industries. They are required to include specific things in 
their policies (whether or not there is any proof that they make a 
difference.. the prohibitions against so-called "drive by deliveries" 
being one shining example), they have specific financial goals they must 
meet, and they have 50 different ways they have to meet these and many 
other regs if they want to write in all 50 states. The anti-trust 
exemption is largely a side (show) issue. 

> 
> 
> > taking decisions
> > out of the hands of individual doctors, on the assumption
> > that letting a politician decide a health issue is somehow
> > better than letting a professional doctor decide the same
> > issue.
> 
> The insult of that lie is compounded by the injury of the truth: Currently,
> such decisions are being made by the bureaucrats who run the insurance
> companies and HMOs, _not_ the health-care professionals.

     They are being made by healthcare professionals who work for the 
insurance companies. And MCare and MCaid make the same kinds of 
decisions daily. Most docs I know are more po'ed at MCare because of all 
the hoops they have to jump through for even less money. 

> 
> The irony of it all, Mark, is that most of the crap that the right-wing has
> been throwing smacks of what a psychiatrist would call "projection." The
> vehemence of the right-wingers can be characterized by borrowing from Queen
> Gertrude: "The Right Wing doth protest too much, methinks."
    God save me from arm chair shrinks. This is not worthy of any other 
comment. 

> 
>  
> > That just does not make sense to me.
> 
> I don't want _any_ bureaucrat to get between me and my physician. But,
> _unlike you,_ I don't restrict that to those who work for the Government.

    But you seem to actively ignore the ones who work for the 
government.  


> 
>  
> > Mark-
> 
> Here are some key provisions (in no particular order) of the
> cobbled-together legislation:
> 
> * Prohibits health insurers from:
>   - refusing coverage based on patients' medical histories.
>   - charging different rates based on patients' medical histories or gender.

   So, the young and healthy will be mugged for the old and sick. Add 
this to the upcoming Social Security fiasco along with the debt and you 
will see a truly breathtaking shift of generational shift of money. 

> 
> * Includes:    
>   - a subsidy to low- and middle-income Americans to help buy insurance.
>   - a central "health insurance exchange" (where the public can compare
>     policies and rates).
>   - a government-run insurance plan ("public option").
    The public option is dead. Even the House guys have decided to let 
it slowly rot in a corner. There already is a health insurance exchange 
where you can compare rates and coverage. It is an idenpendent insurance 
agent or any of the Internet websites. This is BS for about 75% of us 
anyway since they will still be tied to what their employer is willing 
to pay for. 

> 
> * Requires most Americans to carry qualifying health insurance coverage.

   Although I actually agree with the need for this, especially if the 
insurance companies are going to be required to cover all w/o regard to 
pre-existing conditions (can you say moral hazard?), I don't see it 
passing Constitutional. 

> * Repeals insurance companies' exemption from anti-trust laws.
    This is a side show in real life. 

> * Establishes minimum standards for qualified health benefit plans.
      Which are also currently in place, it is just that there are 50 of 
them that go all over the place. Also opens "minimum standards" up to 
political manipulation (see drive-by deliveries among others), and thus 
increases premiums. 

> * Requires most employers to provide coverage for their employees.
    This is the most interesting to me. The costs of healthcare coverage 
are part of the wages just as much as the take home. Every job is worth 
a certain amount economically. It will be most interesting to see what 
this does to job creation (or even job continuation at the lower 
levels). I get hives every time the Congress decides to repeal the laws 
of economics. 

    
> * Expands Medicaid to include more low-income Americans.
    This is probably the cynical part of the legislation to my mind. It 
takes a hefty percentage of the increases and shoves it of to the 
states. Almost as cynical as front loading the taxes and back loading 
the programs to cook the books. 
> 
> 
> Now help me out, Mark: Which part of all of this qualifies as "Communism?"
> Anticipating your _possible_ response: If you're going to point to the
> "public option," then please explain to me how Government-sponsorship of an
> additional insurance plan, designed to compete with (and, in a very
> Capitalist manner, thereby provide additional consumer choice) the
> Industry's "private options" constitutes Communism? Or are you going to
> assert some variation/derivative of that age-old and long-ago discredited
> "Domino Theory" that even the Limbaugh/Beck Crowd hasn't (yet) attempted to
> assert?

     The government option, as originally envisioned in the House plan 
was NOT designed to compete. It was designed to destroy. It very 
succinctly said that the GO could not enter into negotiations with 
providers and had to use the (legislatively mandated and not negotiated) 
MCare payment schedules. MCare (because it is a monopsonist... the 
buyer's equivalent of monopoly) these always run about 60% of what the 
mean old insurance company pays for similar procedures. There is 
absolutely no way the regular insurance companies could have competed 
with this unfair advantage. 
     Although it would have been interesting to see the final outcome. 
Docs are more and more refusing to take new MCare patients above a 
certain level. It might have worked out that so few docs would have 
signed up that it would have been DOA anyway.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <hhhct4$kvh$2@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> Nick Naym wrote:
> > "public option," then please explain to me how Government-sponsorship of an
> > additional insurance plan, designed to compete with (and, in a very
> > Capitalist manner, thereby provide additional consumer choice) the
> 
> If it's designed to compete with them and succeeds, VERY good.
> But if it's designed to put them out of business (or if it does so
> without being "designed" to) then very bad.

   The original Govt option HAD to be designed specifically to put them 
out of biz, see my other recent post for the reasons. I always though 
the original GO was a back door to single payer because only the GO 
would have survived.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <see.signature-701158.00385131122009@news.qwest.net>,
somnambulist <see.signature@uswest.net> wrote:

> In case you're interested, CMS today published the proposed rules, which 
> may raise some interesting issues of privacy, etc:
> <http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=3564&intNu
> mPerPage=10&checkDate=&checkKey=&srchType=1&numDays=3500&srchOpt=0&srchDa
> ta=&keywordType=All&chkNewsType=6&intPage=&showAll=&pYear=&year=&desc=&cb
> oOrder=date>
> (watch the wrap)
> 
> An excerpt:
> 
> "In 2012, CMS proposes requiring the direct submission of clinical 
> quality measures to CMS (or to the states for Medicaid EPs and 
> hospitals) through certified EHR technology.� CMS recognizes that for 
> clinical quality reporting to become routine, the administrative burden 
> of reporting must be reduced. By using certified EHR technology to 
> report information on clinical quality measures electronically to a 
> health information network, a state, CMS, or a registry, the burden on 
> providers that are gathering the data and transmitting them will be 
> greatly reduced.� The burden of generating the necessary information for 
> the provider to then use the information to improve health care quality, 
> efficiency, and patient safety will also be reduced.
> "
> This sounds like automatic (opaque?) excerpting of medical records.

Sounds like excerpting of medical records to me, also.

The sort of quick fix a government bereaucrat would think up.

Lets look at the harm that would do, by taking all those 
government imposed standardized pretty point-and-click 
EHR forms as the law of the land, under the guise of efficiency,
reducing the paperwork load on doctors, improving health care,
and all the other catch phrases of ObamaCare which appeal to
the flaming liberals.

Drawbacks
*******
Doctor dutifully fills in the box for blood type:   "O pos"

The patient is a foreign official who was in an automobile
accident and suffered severe injuries, loss of blood, etc.

Now bear in mind because of all the efficiency, our doctor
is prevented from writing any free-form description of 
the patient's condition in the standardized EHR form, because
that would destroy ObamaCare efficiency - - - if there is not 
a box on the EHR form for something, the doctor can not enter it.

So medical care is approved, the patient mends, everything 
is ducky, ObamaCare came through, whoopie.

Except the patient died a few days after he left the hospital.

Why?   Because there was no place in the EHR form to fill in
critical details.    Seems our patient did indeed have type "O"
blood with positive RH factor, however it was 
"Bombay Phenotype" of the type "O +"  blood.

He died of severe anemia, caused by the good intentions 
of ObamaCare in "improving everything" and running 
roughshod over the doctors desires to allow free-form
description of a patients condition in their ObamaCare
standardized approved-by-Obama EHR forms.

Doctors have always been against these "point-and-click"
EHR forms dreamed up by government "quick fix" people.

Mark-

In article <see.signature-701158.00385131122009@news.qwest.net>,
 somnambulist <see.signature@uswest.net> wrote:

> In article <see.signature-F2A243.23254828122009@news.qwest.net>,
>  somnambulist <see.signature@uswest.net> wrote:
> ...
> > Portions of the legislation already passed this year relate to 
> > electronic records, with payment incentives and penalties relating to 
> > their "significant use". The government hasn't clarified which EMRs will 
> > qualify or exactly what "significant use" means
> ,,,
> 
> In case you're interested, CMS today published the proposed rules, which 
> may raise some interesting issues of privacy, etc:
> <http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=3564&intNu
> mPerPage=10&checkDate=&checkKey=&srchType=1&numDays=3500&srchOpt=0&srchDa
> ta=&keywordType=All&chkNewsType=6&intPage=&showAll=&pYear=&year=&desc=&cb
> oOrder=date>
> (watch the wrap)
> 
> An excerpt:
> 
> "In 2012, CMS proposes requiring the direct submission of clinical 
> quality measures to CMS (or to the states for Medicaid EPs and 
> hospitals) through certified EHR technology.� CMS recognizes that for 
> clinical quality reporting to become routine, the administrative burden 
> of reporting must be reduced. By using certified EHR technology to 
> report information on clinical quality measures electronically to a 
> health information network, a state, CMS, or a registry, the burden on 
> providers that are gathering the data and transmitting them will be 
> greatly reduced.� The burden of generating the necessary information for 
> the provider to then use the information to improve health care quality, 
> efficiency, and patient safety will also be reduced.
> "
> This sounds like automatic (opaque?) excerpting of medical records.  The 
> goal of improving medical care is laudable. The devil is in the details, 
> and the road to Hell is sometimes paved with good intentions.

CMS is NOT going to delve into individual names, I'll wager. They got too full 
of a plate to do that. They are basically just interested in numbers, money, and 
statistical data. It does not take a name to do that.
What they've been doing so far is have electronic transmission of certain 
critical data from med payers. From that they get statistical data. You can 
download data from their website showing how much they have paid for certain 
surgeries in the past.
-- 
Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.
Mark Twain

In article <hhik30$ajq$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Su-Z-Q <reply@this.group> wrote:

> CMS is NOT going to delve into individual names, I'll wager. They got too 
> full 
> of a plate to do that. They are basically just interested in numbers, money, 
> and 
> statistical data. It does not take a name to do that.

  CMS runs MCare and MCaid. In order pay out the claims, they will need 
to have the names running around somewhere. Of course that is not any 
different from what has been going on for the last 40 years or so, in 
that regard.

-- 
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all. 
If once, you've slept on an island.
    Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article <0001HW.C756766F0045CC13B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:58:02 -0600, Robert Haar wrote (in article 
> <C75680EA.481FEC%bobhaar@me.com>): 
> 
> > On 12/22/09 1:31 PM, "Nick Naym" <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> [responding to the following comment made in the preceding posting in this 
> thread] 
> 
> >> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare. 
> > 
> > No _everybody_ but at least all the people in the developed nations of the 
> > world. 
> 
> What comes to mind is that within the United States we have one of the 
> world's foremost problems with obesity. Given that whether or not one is 
> obese is something almost completely under control of the individual I would 
> think that the overall position of health care in the United States would 
> likely be better than it is if only more persons in this country took better 
> care of themselves.

Which diet do you recommend?

-- 
 Israeli Settling http://gop.am/fxb2 http://gop.am/RrPK http://gop.am/0WNU
 Rachel Maddow http://gop.am/ouyu  Health Care http://gop.am/YV6d 
 Look at the Rich Guys http://gop.am/Uv45 http://gop.am/6gdh
 http://northalabamahealthcareforall.org http://healthcareforamericanow.org/ 

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:00:35 -0600, Jean Smith wrote (in article 
<gotermite-42F446.13003505012010@feeder.eternal-september.org>): 

[in response to my having stated]

>> What comes to mind is that within the United States we have one of the 
>> world's foremost problems with obesity. Given that whether or not one is 
>> obese is something almost completely under control of the individual I 
>> would think that the overall position of health care in the United States 
>> would likely be better than it is if only more persons in this country 
>> took better care of themselves. 
> 
> Which diet do you recommend? 

It's simple! Less food, smaller portions, frequent small snacks.

-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:12:01 -0600, TaliesinSoft wrote
(in article <0001HW.C768EB2100011299B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>):

> It's simple! Less food, smaller portions, frequent small snacks.

And continuing....

What has happened in the United States, not to mention elsewhere in the 
world, is that there has been an increasing tendency to "eat out". The 
problem is that restaurants, especially the fast-food kind, place an emphasis 
on quantity. When I go to restaurants with my sweetie we often find that 
sharing a meal is sufficient to satisfy us both.

-- 
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- taliesinsoft@me.com

In article 
<gotermite-42F446.13003505012010@feeder.eternal-september.org>,
 Jean Smith <gotermite@gmail.com> wrote:

> Which diet do you recommend?

Are you being facetious? The diet that doesn't include all the processed 
crap that the last 3 generations have grown up on. The diet that 
includes walking somewhere instead of driving down the fucking freeway 
to buy a quart of milk.
-- 
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
  -- Fannie Farmer

Jean Smith <gotermite@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <0001HW.C756766F0045CC13B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:58:02 -0600, Robert Haar wrote (in article 
> > <C75680EA.481FEC%bobhaar@me.com>): 
> > 
> > > On 12/22/09 1:31 PM, "Nick Naym" <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > [responding to the following comment made in the preceding posting in this
> > thread] 
> > 
> > >> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare. 
> > > 
> > > No _everybody_ but at least all the people in the developed nations of the
> > > world. 
> > 
> > What comes to mind is that within the United States we have one of the
> > world's foremost problems with obesity. Given that whether or not one is
> > obese is something almost completely under control of the individual I would
> > think that the overall position of health care in the United States would
> > likely be better than it is if only more persons in this country took better
> > care of themselves.
> 
> Which diet do you recommend?

Eat less, exercise more.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <gotermite-42F446.13003505012010@feeder.eternal-september.org>,
>  Jean Smith <gotermite@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Which diet do you recommend?
> 
> Are you being facetious? The diet that doesn't include all the processed
> crap that the last 3 generations have grown up on. The diet that 
> includes walking somewhere instead of driving down the fucking freeway
> to buy a quart of milk.

Yeah - I have to laugh at people who DRIVE to local stores that are only
a few minutes walk away, and buy only one or two things. What a waste of
money, oil and exercise.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

On 2009-12-16 15:03:47 -0800, Red said:

> Just switched to a Mac (iMac 21.5") from a PC where I used Firefox.
> 
> Which browser is the smart money on for Mac use?

Safari 4 (64-bit on Snow Leopard!) is fast, easy-to-use and has a good 
mix of simplicity and features. You can also enhance it with browser 
plug-ins such as 1Password. It's the best browser for Mac OS X, as far 
as I'm concerned.

You want something a little more functional, then go for Firefox. You 
want something even simpler, give Chrome a try.

In article <00bf6da9$0$23693$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <gotermite-42F446.13003505012010@feeder.eternal-september.org>,
>  Jean Smith <gotermite@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Which diet do you recommend?
> 
> Are you being facetious? The diet that doesn't include all the processed 
> crap that the last 3 generations have grown up on. The diet that 
> includes walking somewhere instead of driving down the fucking freeway 
> to buy a quart of milk.

Surely you jest. Who build communities on the village model with sidewalks that 
connect the neighbors to their business district? If I want to walk the mile to 
the nearby strip mall, I'll spend much of it balancing on the white stripe at 
the side of the road  with a drop off on one side and a single lane of forty MPH 
traffic on the other.

-- 
 Israeli Settling http://gop.am/fxb2 http://gop.am/RrPK http://gop.am/0WNU
 Rachel Maddow http://gop.am/ouyu  Health Care http://gop.am/YV6d 
 Look at the Rich Guys http://gop.am/Uv45 http://gop.am/6gdh
 http://northalabamahealthcareforall.org http://healthcareforamericanow.org/ 

Jean Smith <gotermite@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <00bf6da9$0$23693$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
>  Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article 
> > <gotermite-42F446.13003505012010@feeder.eternal-september.org>,
> >  Jean Smith <gotermite@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Which diet do you recommend?
> > 
> > Are you being facetious? The diet that doesn't include all the processed
> > crap that the last 3 generations have grown up on. The diet that 
> > includes walking somewhere instead of driving down the fucking freeway
> > to buy a quart of milk.
> 
> Surely you jest. Who build communities on the village model with sidewalks
> that connect the neighbors to their business district? If I want to walk
> the mile to the nearby strip mall, I'll spend much of it balancing on the
> white stripe at the side of the road  with a drop off on one side and a
> single lane of forty MPH traffic on the other.

They do here in NZ. I'd have to head way outside of town to reach a road
I couldn't walk beside safely with no alternative routes available. Even
the harbour bridge has a walkway on the side.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article <0001HW.C768F1C90002A220B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:12:01 -0600, TaliesinSoft wrote
> (in article <0001HW.C768EB2100011299B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>):
> 
> > It's simple! Less food, smaller portions, frequent small snacks.
> 
> And continuing....
> 
> What has happened in the United States, not to mention elsewhere in the 
> world, is that there has been an increasing tendency to "eat out". The 
> problem is that restaurants, especially the fast-food kind, place an emphasis 
> on quantity. When I go to restaurants with my sweetie we often find that 
> sharing a meal is sufficient to satisfy us both.

Read about the quality of fast food here:

http://www.naturalnews.com/027872_ammonia_beef_products.html

("I'll have the big ammonia with melted plastic-hold the vegetables-and, ooooh, 
extra mayo please.")
-- 
Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.
Mark Twain

In article <hi4eda$to0$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Su-Z-Q <reply@this.group> 
wrote:

> In article <0001HW.C768F1C90002A220B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:12:01 -0600, TaliesinSoft wrote
> > (in article <0001HW.C768EB2100011299B01029BF@News.Individual.NET>):
> > 
> > > It's simple! Less food, smaller portions, frequent small snacks.
> > 
> > And continuing....
> > 
> > What has happened in the United States, not to mention elsewhere in the 
> > world, is that there has been an increasing tendency to "eat out". The 
> > problem is that restaurants, especially the fast-food kind, place an 
> > emphasis 
> > on quantity. When I go to restaurants with my sweetie we often find that 
> > sharing a meal is sufficient to satisfy us both.
> 
> Read about the quality of fast food here:
> 
> http://www.naturalnews.com/027872_ammonia_beef_products.html
> 
> ("I'll have the big ammonia with melted plastic-hold the vegetables-and, 
> ooooh, 
> extra mayo please.")

Is type 2 diabetes an improvement on the hypoglycemia which precedes it?

-- 
 Israeli Settling http://gop.am/fxb2 http://gop.am/RrPK http://gop.am/0WNU
 Rachel Maddow http://gop.am/ouyu  Health Care http://gop.am/YV6d 
 Look at the Rich Guys http://gop.am/Uv45 http://gop.am/6gdh
 http://northalabamahealthcareforall.org http://healthcareforamericanow.org/