health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 8 Mar 2010 14:53 On Mar 8, 10:03 am, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. That's not true. In some cases, like SOD disorder, you can ameliorate cell damage if you start treatments real early, well before the onset of observable symptoms. However, as you have suggested, once the neurons are gone, they are gone.
From: Don Kirkman on 8 Mar 2010 14:55 On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:13:43 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: >On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:14:51 -0800, Don Kirkman <donsno2(a)charter.net> >wrote: >>>and almost tripling the number of Predator strikes? >>"On Feb. 16, 2001, Predator #3034 took to the air and successfully >>fired a Hellfire in flight. A series of tests showed how effective the >>Hellfire was against tanks. Clark keeps on his desk the salvaged >>warhead of the first Predator Hellfire to strike a tank. >I hope that you don't suffer from mild dyslexia like I do, but why >would a weapon that successfully tested February 2001 not be available >to Bush? Got me--and obviously my dyslexia isn't really mild. :-{ >In any case, back to Obama and his continuation of Bush's policies. >From the LA Times March 22, 2009 >Because of its success, the Obama administration is set to continue >the accelerated campaign despite civilian casualties that have fueled >anti-U.S. sentiment and prompted protests from the Pakistani" >government. >http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/mar/22/as-predator-strikes-increase-al-qaidas-strength/ >And >"The first two C.I.A. air strikes of the Obama Administration took >place on the morning of January 23rd, the President's third day in >office. Within hours, it was clear that the morning's bombings, in >Pakistan, had killed an estimated twenty people." >"Since then, the C.I.A. bombardments have continued at a rapid pace. >According to a just completed study by the New America Foundation, the >number of drone strikes has risen dramatically since Obama became >President. During his first nine and a half months in office, he has >authorized as many C.I.A. aerial attacks in Pakistan as George W. Bush >did in his final three years in office. The study's authors, Peter >Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann, report that the Obama Administration >has sanctioned at least forty-one C.I.A. missile strikes in Pakistan >since taking office, a rate of approximately one bombing a week. So >far this year, various estimates suggest, the C.I.A. attacks have >killed between three hundred and twenty-six and five hundred and >thirty-eight people. Critics say that many of the victims have been >innocent bystanders, including children." >http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_mayer >The entire article is worth a read. All of which underscores my point that rational governmental policies and programs don't turn on a dime--Obama's naivete or enthusiasm fostered unrealistic expectations about what could be done and how soon it could be done. Nevertheless, no matter what happens with health care a number of things do seem to be changing somewhat. -- Don Kirkman donsno2(a)charter.net
From: BAR on 8 Mar 2010 16:58 In article <clark-2BCB1B.09453808032010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > 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. Some families are compassionate enough and not as self indulgent as others who would foist off the care of their loved ones to the government and leave their fellow countrymen to foot the bill while their inheritance stays in tact.
From: William Clark on 8 Mar 2010 17:05 In article <6811de37-b384-4cb0-bb94-60d7440fb93e(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > On Mar 8, 10:03�am, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > That's not true. In some cases, like SOD disorder, you can ameliorate > cell damage if you start treatments real early, well before the onset > of observable symptoms. However, as you have suggested, once the > neurons are gone, they are gone. Perhaps, but not with ALS. Untreated, most patients live about 18 months - with medication about a year and a half.
From: William Clark on 8 Mar 2010 17:08
In article <c6c0d51d-a4a7-478e-9982-7f951eca130a(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > 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. Well, it doesn't surprise me that the companionship and closeness of a family doesn't mean much to you. That you lack such humanity is clear from the way you dismiss fellow human beings in your posts. Clearly being institutionalized will suit you better, and good luck. The rest of your post is just the usual bigoted ultra-right BS. Stick it. |