From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Sep 5, 9:38 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:54:11 -0700, dene wrote:
> > "Carbon" <nob...(a)> wrote in message
> >news:4aa27073$0$23978$9a6e19ea(a)
> >> These things happen because there is no clear direction about how to
> >> proceed in the event of a catastrophic medical event. Not death
> >> panels, Greg. Saving money by giving people what they want in the
> >> first place. Besides, we already have death panels:
> >
> > Your cite is interesting but I betcha there is another side to the
> > story that the author conveniently leaves out.  In my own 20+ yr.
> > experience, I've never seen "medically necessary" abused.
> > As for rationing, I'm in favor of it for both MedicAid and Medicare.
> > Oregon was able to receive a waiver which allowed them to ration
> > MedicAid and thus expand coverage to the working poor.  This should be
> > done on a national level.  Medicare is bloated beyond belief.
> >'s a step that might need to happen incrementally.  You
> > Canadians were born into a system that rations care.  Whereas,
> > Americans are use to having the best, right away, on an unlimited
> > basis.  It's going to take a while for rationing or self discipline to
> > take hold.
> You are in denial. The US system rations care to a *much* greater extent
> than the Canadian system does. In Canada if you're sick and you need
> expensive care, you get it, period. No credit checks, no fighting with
> insurance companies, no paperwork, no bullshit. Here--and you know
> this--if you get an expensive illness you may not get the care you need,
> even if you have insurance. Why? Because INSURANCE COMPANIES RATION
> CARE. This rationing can be based on such non-medical factors as
> quarterly profits, likelihood of getting away with it, et cetera. Now,
> I'm not going to google up a thousand more links like the one above, but
> they're out there. And you know it.

That's not true. The system says if you are *DIAGNOSED* by the system
as having some medial issue, they must treat it. However, to be
diagnosed you first have to see your family care physician, who then
will, if (s)he catches it, will refer you to a specialist, who can
then diagnose the issue and set up treatments. I have seen, with my
own family members, obvious issues that the family care physician
cannot treat, and as it is not immediately life threatening, you wind
up waiting months to see the specialist, and then wait months for the
treatment. Now if it is life threatening, you will be treated
immediately, that is for sure. However, how long do you want to go on
with untreated colitis...if it is not life threatening, look to 2
years plus, during which it becomes much worse, of course, and then
you get treated with removal of the colon, which is pretty drastic,
but cheap compared to ongoing treatments that would be less drastic
for the patient.

....but that's the kind of thing you get when the govt makes these
decisions. You and I differ here, but IMHO, the worst possible case
for these things is to have the govt make these decisions. The public
has no recourse. You can conjure up horror stories no matter how these
things are handled, but in the US, you have recourse.

The woman in Oregon who was denied an expensive drug by the govt, and
when big pharma found out about it offered to comp the drug to the
woman is a telling story. Big pharma is more ethical that the govt in
these cases, and not for no reason. Comping the drug here and there
cost big pharma nothing...but it is something the govt cannot do as
the govt doesn't know how to be big pharma.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Sep 6, 10:32 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)> wrote:
> On 06 Sep 2009 14:43:39 GMT, Carbon <nob...(a)>
> wrote:
> >On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:18:28 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
> >> On 06 Sep 2009 02:38:47 GMT, Carbon <nob...(a)>
> >> wrote:
> >>> In Canada if you're sick and you need expensive care, you get it,
> >>> period.
> >> Canadians get it all right, but not the way they think. Canada's
> >> health care rationing kills.
> >Spare me the bullshit.
> From the Canadian Supreme Court decision July, 2005.
> "Delays in the public system are widespread and have serious,
> sometimes grave, consequences," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin
> and Justice John Major. "Inevitably where patients have
> life-threatening conditions, some will die because of undue delay in
> awaiting surgery."
> I assume that this decision came after a long trial with many expert
> witnesses followed by a period of deliberation.  Now if the greatest
> legal minds in Canada say that the Canadian health care system results
> in people unnecessarily dying, then who am I, or you for that matter,
> to disagree.

What's scary is these people simply deny the problems with govt health
care. They don't care. They just think that somehow it is a magic
solution that will instantly solve all problems, and the established
fact that it doesn't work doesn't phase them...and that;'s's
only going to get worse! Canada is already setting up private clinics
to deal with these issues...but it's like a band aid on a shrapnel chance, especially if the US goes the govt health care
route...then there will be no room in the US for Canadians to send
patients when the system in Canada overflows, as it always does, and
they always do send the overflow to the US.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Sep 5, 5:13 pm, "dene" <d...(a)> wrote:
> "Jack Hollis" <xslee...(a)> wrote in message
> news:giv4a5dkqs5hat2dl2lffm6l3dqng7pl0o(a)
> > On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:22:35 GMT, Bobby Knight <bkni...(a)>
> > wrote:
> > >You have to be kidding!
> > > In the first place is taken out of
> > >context.
> > I'm sorry BK, but it's you that has to be kidding.  These are all
> > entire paragraphs and some are consecutive paragraphs and entire
> > pages.  Nothing is taken out of context.
> > >The premise is not one that is being suggested, rather what
> > >a regime, such as the Planetary Regime, COULD do if it was so
> > >dedicated.  This is a "what could happen" scenario, not a suggestion
> > >for the Obama administration.  Hell it was written 32 years ago.
> > This is just an indication of how radical some of the Obama's advisors
> > are.  Van Jones is another example of how out of touch with America
> > Obama and his advisors are.
> > The fact that anyone could even suggest the things that Holdren
> > suggests is an indication that the man is totally unacceptable to be a
> > member of the US government on any level.  The same is true for Van
> > Jones.
> > >Now go back and see where any of this is deemed OK, or that this kind
> > >of Big Brother medical practice is suggested as policy by this, or any
> > >other administration.
> > Bobby, you asked for a cite where members of the Obama administration
> > suggested forced abortions and you got it.  In addition, you got a lot
> > more than that.  Forced abortions were the least of it.  Mostly of
> > this stuff could only be carried out by a totalitarian regime like the
> > Communists or the Fascists.  This type of thinking has no place in a
> > democracy.  However, there is serious doubt that Holdern actually
> > believes in democracy or the US Constitution.  If he did, he could
> > have never written such things.
> > >Hollis knows better too, but its the kind of ultra-right-wing bullshit
> > >that they spread in order to scare those of you who believe anything.
> > >BK
> > Bobby, all I did was quote directly from Holdren's book.  These are
> > his words, not mine.  The facts are the facts.
> > My guess is that Holdern dropped a little too much acid back in the
> > old days and hasn't returned to his right mind yet.  It frightening
> > that he is an advisor to the President.
> So that's KnitWit's excuse.....that it was written out of context, 32 years
> ago.  I'm glad I didn't bother to read this nonsense on GG.  Let's suppose
> there is merit to his Knit's excuse.  Where's the cite that indicates the
> author changed his mind.  Unless there is, his words stand.
> -Greg

People like him have nothing to contribute. They have made up their
mind and will not look at what is happening. If you present something
like the writings of Holdren and Emanuel, they simply deny it. There
is no point to any discussion with such people. Obama, FWIW, needs to
come clean on these issues, and either deny Holdren and Emanuel
outright, or justify the value of their approaches as potential

Throwing van Horn under the bus doesn't ameliorate the problems with
senior advisers like Holdren and Emanuel.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Sep 5, 7:08 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 15:13:47 -0700, "dene" <d...(a)>
> wrote:
> >So that's KnitWit's excuse.....that it was written out of context, 32 years
> >ago.
> The out of context argument is complete rubbish.  What they say is
> obvious.  
> The only way to describe the person who wrote these things is as an
> Eco-Fascist.  Someone who is willing to suspend democracy, the
> Constitution and human rights to protect the environment.

Even if you take the "what if" view here, it shows how the policy is
bad. You give govt these powers and they then can do these things. Of
course Holdren is "advising" what can be done to control population,
and he is a Sr. WH adviser. I suppose Knit Wit thinks Holdren is
giving someone else's advice in his book!
From: assimilate on

On 6-Sep-2009, Carbon <nobrac(a)> wrote:

> I do not care about Kennedy or Rangel. The discussion was whether Palin
> is capable of holding high public office, and she clearly is not.

I would say that as an elected Gov, your opinion didn't count much there.