health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Carbon on 5 Mar 2010 19:24 On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:39:33 -0500, BAR wrote: > In article <shf2p55j3ubip8uki7ho5urrb8fi3f2253(a)4ax.com>, > bknight(a)conramp.net says... >> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:45:25 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >>> In article <9d82377e-55c0-412c-a69f-fde7afa47730 >>> @b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... >>>> >>>>> Clinton is lucky that the economy didn't start to tank prior to >>>>> March of 1999. >>>> >>>> Is that really the best you can do? You guys aren't doing a very >>>> good job of hodling up your side. >>> >>>The president does not contorl the economy. >> >> Then how can you assess blame there to Obama? > > Success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan. > > Obama is blaming everything on Bush, why can't I blame some things on > Obama? Political rhetoric is grounded in reality. Surely you have a cite for where Obama blamed everything on Bush.
From: Carbon on 5 Mar 2010 19:51 On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:40:47 -0500, William Clark wrote: > In article > <66c8c0a7-5c3b-4890-9eac-4ae131c00b73(a)q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>, > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Since you're so well-informed, why don't you enlighten me about what >> kind of treatment an unwealthy and underinsured ALS patient would >> get? > > Let me add my 2c worth on this topic, just for reference. My father > also dies from ALS in the UK. My parents were comfortably off, but not > wealthy. Once he was diagnosed, in addition to the regular visits that > the family doctor paid to the house, he was also visited by a social > worker. Her function was to provide whatever support he required. That > ranged from simple handholds for the bathroom, so that he could > manouevre himself around in the early stages, through to automated > devices that turned book pages for him, so that he could read, and > much more in between. All these were provided free. In addition, the > district nurse called at the house every morning and evening to help > my mother get my father up and about, and then to bed at night - > including assistance with bathroom functions. Again, all of this was > without charge, and it relieved my mother, who had enough to cope with > watching the love of her life die piece by piece and providing meals > and attention, of the physical challenge of lifting my father. This > meant that he was able to remain at home, and not have to go to a > hospice - another enormous comfort to both him and the family. In the > end, he died peacefully sitting in his arm chair when his heart gave > out. None of this entire process cost our family one additional penny > in medical bills, and my mother was able to keep their home and other > assets untouched. > > I am sorry, but no one without a major health insurance plan (and > probably not even then) would have got this level of treatment and > attention under the US system without going broke in the process. It > is simply a matter of how a society thinks it should take care of the > sick and elderly. The doctor always made house calls when I was a kid in Canada as well. The flip side of that is the US. I work with a fellow who got cancer while unemployed due to the recession. His health insurance lapsed because he could not afford to pay for Cobra and keep his family fed. He put off going to the doctor due to his financial situation. Now he is getting chemo, which he has no hope of paying for. The cancer has spread to his lungs. I'm not a doctor and I heard this second hand, but sense of things is that when the cancer starts traveling the prognosis is usually not very good. He's my age, mid-40's, and he's fucked.
From: Jack Hollis on 5 Mar 2010 20:14 On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 06:19:33 -0800 (PST), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mar 4, 8:53=A0pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:47:45 -0800 (PST), "John B." >> >> <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Mar 4, 11:29=3DA0am, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:32:28 -0800, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >It's hard for me to defend the worst president since Carter....but I = >wil=3D >> >l >> >> >never agree with you or anybody in saying he is a dumb man. >> >> >> Only a complete ideologue could ignore the objective data that Bush >> >> was a man of superior to very superior intelligence. =3DA0 >> >> >I haven't seen that data. Can you tell me where to find it? >> >> Bush's SAT score (pre 1974) was 1206. =A0As you might expect, his 566 in >> verbal was well below his 640 in math. >> >> In any case, this score converts to an IQ of around 127 to 132 which >> is in the superior to very superior range. >> >> http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Pre1974SAT.aspx >> >> BTW, JFK scored a 119 on the Otis IQ test when he was tested for >> admission to a private high school. > >That's it? That's the data? SAT scores are an excellent measure of intelligence. So are GRE, and LSAT scores. All were used by Mensa as criterion for admission. Of course, Bush wasn't quite Mensa material, but he is certainly of superior to very superior intelligence. I wouldn't expect you to really admit that you were wrong about Bush's intelligence, but you are and Bush's SAT scores prove it.
From: Jack Hollis on 5 Mar 2010 20:21 On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 06:27:48 -0800 (PST), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >A great president? Let's look objectively at how things were at the >end of the Clinton administration and how things were at the end of >Bush. At the end of Clinton there was a budget surplus, we were at the >end of the longest persion of economic growth in US history, we were >at peace, crime had fallen nationwide, unemployment was low and the >United States was sitting on top of the world. At the end of Bush, we >were in two wars, there was a $1.7 trillion deficit, a financial >crisis and a severe recession, high unemployment, and America's >standing in the world had fallen to an all-time low. All in all, the >country was in worse shape than at anytime since WWII. But Bush was a >great president, huh? The US is still on top of the world. Bush was a wartime president who had to Make up for the failures of the Clinton administration. His only weakness was his domestic spending habits which were scandalous for someone who calls himself a conservative. The financial collapse was years in the making and really was the result of the sub-prime mortgage crisis which was created by the Democrats and the social engineering program called the Community Investment Act. Bush was the best, Obama is a disaster. I don't think there's any doubt that Obama is even worse that Jimmy Carter.
From: Jack Hollis on 5 Mar 2010 20:23
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 06:29:54 -0800 (PST), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Bashing Obama doesn't really bear out your premise that Bush was a >"great president." If doing a great job on the foreign policy front >means alienating all your allies, then I completely agree with you. Alienating what allies? |