health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 7 Mar 2010 13:35 On 07 Mar 2010 16:16:50 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> I'm curious about your stance, Bobby. Had Saddam indeed had WMD, would >> you have supported the invasion? > >I wouldn't have. There are dozens of petty tyrants around the world, >some of which actually have access to WMD. How is it that Saddam's >theoretical, alleged, unproven WMD program shot to the front of the >line? Could it be that WMD was just an excuse? Hmmm... Of course. But not just for oil, and IMHO, not even primarily for oil. As with most wars (see Vietnam), it was about face and about politics. -- "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: Dinosaur_Sr on 7 Mar 2010 14:24 On Mar 5, 3:40 pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- state.edu> wrote: snippit.... That's probably about the care you could get for $2 million in the UK I suppose. ALS is a degenerative disease that you can do little for (although there are some treatments that supposedly ameliorate the cell damage somewhat). Having someone visit from time to time, regardless of the interval, is not that big a deal. Providing the actual medical treatment in a modern facility is quite another. "Home based care" is one of the major ways those who think we want this plan to cut costs. Home appendectomy anyone?
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 7 Mar 2010 14:25 On Mar 6, 11:42 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:15:26 -0700, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> > wrote: > > >On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:43:52 -0500, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> > >wrote: > > >>>> Incidentally, Carter's IQ was 176 and he was the second worst > >>>> president in my lifetime. > > >>>Carter is the worst US president ever. > > >>Obama's certainly has a good start in supplanting Carter for that > >>honor. > > >He has a good chance of tying with his predecessor by keeping all of > >Bush's policies. > > Obama has continued Bush's policies on the war on terror only. His > outrageous spending spree is his alone. > > Of course, Obama knows that Bush's policies on the war on terror have > been very successful, so it was best not to change too much. The one > change he tried to make by giving terrorists criminal trials in the US > was a big mistake and it looks like Obama has realized this and > dropped the idea. The Bush administration didn't seem to mind spending. They gave us the atrocious No Child Left Behind, after all, not to mention the free pills for seniors program.
From: Howard Brazee on 7 Mar 2010 17:12 On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 11:11:52 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >Bush deficit went from 5 to 10 trillion (in rough figures) including >TARP in 8 years. Obama has gone from 10 to 14 trillion in one year not >just excluding TARP, but including positive return of TARP revenue to >the fed! > >Given that the GOP was rightly turned out of power for excessive >spending, how does emphasizing this fact help the dems, who are >spending far more? I expect the intent isn't so much to help the Democrats, but to make sure people look at their history before trusting Republicans on this issue. A campaign slogan of "we're both thieves, so vote for me", probably won't 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
From: William Clark on 7 Mar 2010 19:31
In article <768b0082-debe-40e1-9223-9ae26682703c(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > On Mar 5, 3:40�pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > state.edu> wrote: > > > snippit.... > > That's probably about the care you could get for $2 million in the UK > I suppose. ALS is a degenerative disease that you can do little for > (although there are some treatments that supposedly ameliorate the > cell damage somewhat). Good thing you snipped all the details of the care provided for my father, otherwise your lean-spirited little gibe would really show you up for the hypocrite you are. Please don't presume to patronize me on ALS - I have forgotten more about the disease than you will ever know about it. > > Having someone visit from time to time, regardless of the interval, is > not that big a deal. Providing the actual medical treatment in a > modern facility is quite another. "Home based care" is one of the > major ways those who think we want this plan to cut costs. Home > appendectomy anyone? "Having someone visit from time to time" is nothing at all to do with in home nursing care, provided twice a day (and more often if requested). It has nothing to do with family doctors that pay house calls to needy patients. I am glad that you think that this whole ordeal is "not that big a deal". A less charitable soul than me would wish the same fate upon you, and then see how much you try to belittle the process and the care. The "home based care" that you sneer at (albeit in incomprehensible syntax), was, in fact, the saving grace for my father and our family. None of us could bear thinking about having to move him out of his home into a hospice, as would have been the best outcome he could hope for here. However, I am also glad that you do finally admit that providing in home care is not only beneficial for the patient and family, but is also more efficient for the health service. Amen - you have just taken on board the principal argument for extending early and regular health care to those currently unable to afford it, and who will end up in our emergency rooms with chronic (and very expensive) illnesses. Congratulations, and welcome to the side of reason. |