health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 8 Mar 2010 07:46 On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:06:26 -0800 (PST), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >You can say he's continuing Bush's policies. Or you can say, more >accurately, that he's taking policies that Bush royally screwed up and >doing them right. He's doing Corporate Welfare right? The country he's concentrating our foreign war in might be closer to where bin Laden's hiding, and it's farther away from the one that supplied the 9/11 pilots. -- "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 8 Mar 2010 08:54 On Mar 7, 7:31 pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > In article > <768b0082-debe-40e1-9223-9ae266827...(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(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. Self righteous denigration? More of your Dr. Phil training there? Someone stopping by a couple of times a day isn't going to do much for an ALS victim. When they can take care of themselves, who needs it...when they can't, they need constant care. What would be really nice is to give them meds that ameliorate the condition. This would have to be done over their lifetime, and could prove quite costly, but some people might be willing to pay for it...but when the govt decides, it's going to be too expensive, isn't it?
From: William Clark on 8 Mar 2010 09:45 In article <4ac95e14-5204-4e8b-ac45-42d73355ca59(a)i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > On Mar 7, 7:31�pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> > wrote: > > In article > > <768b0082-debe-40e1-9223-9ae266827...(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > �Dinosaur Sr <frostback2...(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. > > Self righteous denigration? More of your Dr. Phil training there? > Someone stopping by a couple of times a day isn't going to do much for > an ALS victim. When they can take care of themselves, who needs > it...when they can't, they need constant care. What would be really > nice is to give them meds that ameliorate the condition. This would > have to be done over their lifetime, and could prove quite costly, but > some people might be willing to pay for it...but when the govt > decides, it's going to be too expensive, isn't it? In your haste to be snide, you seem to forget that the name of the game is health CARE. That includes curing illnesses AND caring for the sick, even if their disease is incurable. I know you have a hard time grasping that concept, fixated as you are with who pays what for what, but do try a little harder. My father got all the medication that was available for this condition - the fact is that 20 years later, we still have made little progress on ALS - and the health service paid for it all. So, please try to get it into your head that this "socialized medicine" that you are so pathological about (even though you clearly know nothing about it), provides BOTH medication and care, and cost is not an issue. "Too expensive" ? Hell, no.
From: John B. on 8 Mar 2010 10:03 On Mar 8, 8:54 am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Mar 7, 7:31 pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> > wrote: > > > > > In article > > <768b0082-debe-40e1-9223-9ae266827...(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(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. > > Self righteous denigration? More of your Dr. Phil training there? > Someone stopping by a couple of times a day isn't going to do much for > an ALS victim. When they can take care of themselves, who needs > it...when they can't, they need constant care. What would be really > nice is to give them meds that ameliorate the condition. This would > have to be done over their lifetime, and could prove quite costly, but > some people might be willing to pay for it...but when the govt > decides, it's going to be too expensive, isn't it? There is no medication that ameliorates the condition.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 8 Mar 2010 14:51
On Mar 8, 9:45 am, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- state.edu> wrote: > In article > <4ac95e14-5204-4e8b-ac45-42d73355c...(a)i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > On Mar 7, 7:31 pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> > > wrote: > > > In article > > > <768b0082-debe-40e1-9223-9ae266827...(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Dinosaur Sr <frostback2...(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. > > > Self righteous denigration? More of your Dr. Phil training there? > > Someone stopping by a couple of times a day isn't going to do much for > > an ALS victim. When they can take care of themselves, who needs > > it...when they can't, they need constant care. What would be really > > nice is to give them meds that ameliorate the condition. This would > > have to be done over their lifetime, and could prove quite costly, but > > some people might be willing to pay for it...but when the govt > > decides, it's going to be too expensive, isn't it? > > In your haste to be snide, you seem to forget that the name of the game > is health CARE. That includes curing illnesses AND caring for the sick, > even if their disease is incurable. I know you have a hard time grasping > that concept, fixated as you are with who pays what for what, but do try > a little harder. My father got all the medication that was available for > this condition - the fact is that 20 years later, we still have made > little progress on ALS - and the health service paid for it all. So, > please try to get it into your head that this "socialized medicine" that > you are so pathological about (even though you clearly know nothing > about it), provides BOTH medication and care, and cost is not an issue. > "Too expensive" ? Hell, no. Really? If I get ALS, I would want full time *CARE* in a care facility with expertise in the area. Someone to come and clean me up twice a day at home is pretty grim to me. "Home care" is substandard, cheapo care in cases like this, but it is where you have to go when the people have to support a useless, politicized govt bureaucracy and the cost of health care with the money they earn and spend on health care. FWIW, no need to support the insurance companies either, IMHO. If you can pay for a house or a car, you can pay for health care, and people who are too good to work can sleep in their own bed. |