[wacor]

Did you know that Chevy Chase originally played with Becker and Fagan?


From Wiki

Early years

Donald Fagen and Walter Becker met at Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson, New York, in 1967. Fagen was passing by a cafe called The Red Balloon when he heard Becker rehearsing the electric guitar.[11] He would later recount the experience during an interview: "I hear this guy practicing, and it sounded very professional and contemporary. It sounded like, you know, like a black person, really."[11] He immediately introduced himself to Becker, and asked him "Do you want to be in a band?"[11] They quickly realized that they enjoyed similar music, and even listened to the same jazz radio stations; not long after, they began writing songs together.
The two soon began playing in local groups. One of these bands, first known as The Bad Rock Group and later as The Leather Canary, included future comedy star Chevy Chase on drums.

[LANMaster]

ObamaCare Preview

From Britain, where they have already leapt off the cliff into socialized medicine:

A hospital nurse shouted at an elderly woman and stripped her naked in front of other patients, a hearing has been told.
Memory Musekiwa is accused of pushing the pensioner, who had wet herself, onto a commode in full view and then refusing to wash her. …
The patient, who was in her late seventies, 'cried and cried' following the incident at Worcestershire Royal Hospital, the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) heard. …
Musekiwa, from Walsall, West Midlands, shouted, removed the woman's nightdress and then left her with no curtain around her, said Salim Hafejee for the NMC.
'She then pushed Patient A on to a commode and told her to stay there while she went to get a mop,' he told the panel.
'When Patient A asked to be washed, she refused and put a clean nightdress on her.'
He added: 'She failed to appropriately deal with a patient who found herself in a situation where she could not help herself. She did not protect this patient's dignity.'

But moonbattery means progressing beyond old-fangled notions of freedom and dignity.

The free market creates competition, so that the interests of consumers have to be taken into account. This sort of behavior would drive a private facility out of business in no time. But the government offers no alternatives. If consumers don't like the "free" healthcare financed with their exorbitant taxes, they can shut up and die.

Moonbattery

[iltos]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

[size="5"]
The free market creates competition, so that the interests of consumers have to be taken into account. This sort of behavior would drive a private facility out of business in no time. But the government offers no alternatives. If consumers don't like the "free" healthcare financed with their exorbitant taxes, they can shut up and die.

hmmm....i wonder about health care as a competitive market
from the producer's standpoint, it's really all about minimizing the risk of loss....or producing the most health for the least amount of money....isn't it?
in a competitive marketplace, you sell a product....and while there's no rule that says a producer has to offer a guarantee, customer satisfaction IS what assures the success of the product, and so we consumers are used to guarantees that the product will meet certain critieria.

and the amount we pay influences our expectations of quality.

it would seem then, that if i have no health insurance and pay full price for medical services, i would get the best care possible.

but, for the majority, the truth is that if i don't have health insurance, it's probably because i can't afford much of anything in the way of medical care.

which limits the idea of a "competitive marketplace" right there, doesn't it?.....creating an environment where risk of loss can become a determining factor in the product's offering

understand....the insurance industry has every right to make that judgement, imo, so long as it's primary goal remains making a profit.

but understand, as well, that once the profit motive is introduced into the medical profession, then suddenly people's health becomes a product.



i'm just asking whether a society wants to look at itself that way

[LANMaster]

Mal practice is a guarantee.
In addition, you are not allowed to be refused life saving treatment at any US hospital.
But as an insured, employed person (as is the vast majority of Americans) the marketplace IS a huge factor. I have a number of choices when it comes to which hospital I choose, and even which doctor I wish to use.

Under Obama's plan, you will be able to choose NEITHER, regardless of your insurance or wealth status.

Obamacare improves healthcare for NOBODY. All it does is reduce the quality of healthcare for those who currently have choices.

[wacor]

Lan where does it say Obamas plan takes away choices you just referred to?

I think eventually many of the choices will be made by the govt but not initially. It is the slippery slope which I am concerned about.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by wacor

Lan where does it say Obamas plan takes away choices you just referred to?

t is an innevitable conclusion. Has been everywhere Socialized medicine has been adopted.

I think eventually many of the choices will be made by the govt but not initially. It is the slippery slope which I am concerned about.

yup .... but more like a cliff over which we are swan-diving.

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by Sarge

The point is not the hip, if you have questions about the hip, ask the President, He is the one that made the statement and He nor you answered the question.

The point is this is just more of the same idiotic gotcha-journalism, which is evident in the presentation of the question, because breaking a hip is not reason for a "hip replacement",... that's actually miss named, because it has nothing to do with replacing the hips, but rather the ball joint at the top of the femer bone, the part that inserts into the hip...

The "journalist" in question here, made up a (bad) hypothetical, in order to trap the President in a way that looks bad by design,... "Obama wouldn't help little old ladies!!!..."

HOOEY!!!

...the only answer to that question is, "That's for a doctor to evaluate, and I can't possibly speculate as to what 'would' happen..."

The statement is very clear. If a person is terminally ill, the government will not pay for specialized procedures due to , the patient is going to die soon anyway. Is this not the point that Obama was making? If not please help me to turn my brain on and explain it to me because I would like to know.

It's the same old "gotch" BS, someone got the President to speculate,... which was a mistake, and now they are making lots of political-hay out of it, running around claiming that these hypothetical claims "prove" that the sky is falling,... and you bought it.

And please tell me what are all of the "fallacies" that you are concluding to?

This fallacy is called "argument to the future"; things like saying, "In the future scientist will show that air causes cancer so breathing is just wrong!"

BTW, I dont listen to or endorse Limbaugh, or Hannity for that matter.

I was kidding, note the ""

[jmosmith]

Originally Posted by wacor

Forget the hip analogy. You know darn well the govt will have to limit things and micro manage in order to keep costs under control. That is the point.

I know nothing of the kind, and neither do you, especially since no system has been presented.

What has been suggested is a system like Medicare, which would not (and does not) operate as you suggest at all.

How many people go to a clinic for general issues that have insurance? Well if Obamacare comes to fruiting and morphs into what it eventually has to then you are going to be faced with either long waits for a primary care physician or going to a clinic.

Primary care physicians are going to be over worked and there will not be enough of them. In the future young people are not going to choose that as their job as a result. So we will be faced with either going to clinics to get immediate help or waiting long hours or days to see the primary care doctor. This is not a guess but a reasonable assumption based on things I have heard in Britain and Canada.

The plural of data, is not "anecdote",... and you haven't even presented those, just a criptic referal to something you've "heard", without actually even telling us what that is.

garbage....

[Stoner]

If the Feds can't be trusted with the bailout monies, why trust them with your health


Hi James

[wacor]

Sorry if the logic escapes you James.

Have a nice day

Morning Jack

[TooBad]

If you would like a common sense article on medical costs, please read Dr. Thomas Sowell's article today.

http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...&comments=true

A small snippet.

"Politicians may talk about "bringing down the cost of medical care," but they seldom even attempt to bring down the costs. What they bring down is the price-- which is to say, they refuse to pay the costs.
Anybody can refuse to pay any cost. But don't be surprised if you get less when you pay less. None of this is rocket science. But it does require us to stop and think before jumping on a bandwagon."

[Wino]

Originally Posted by Stoner

If the Feds can't be trusted with the bailout monies, why trust them with your health ...........................................

Let me see, hmmmm. In my case I have three choices. Let Uncle Sam & BCBS supplement handle my health care or pay BCBS PPO $15-18K vs. the $3.6K I now pay for better coverage, lower deductables, going to the same doctor(s) and medical facilities. Or just go without any health care coverage and hit the ER when I feel bad hoping nothing major is wrong, pay nothing and pray I get treatment if there is a problem. Tough decisions. I'll take the Feds, thank you.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by Wino

Let me see, hmmmm. In my case I have three choices. Let Uncle Sam & BCBS supplement handle my health care or pay BCBS PPO $15-18K vs. the $3.6K I now pay for better coverage, lower deductables, going to the same doctor(s) and medical facilities. Or just go without any health care coverage and hit the ER when I feel bad hoping nothing major is wrong, pay nothing and pray I get treatment if there is a problem. Tough decisions. I'll take the Feds, thank you.

That would be your choice.
But why should I have to live by your choices?

[Wino]

Originally Posted by Stoner

That would be your choice.
But why should I have to live by your choices?

You don't. You're free to do whatever you wish (within the laws).

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by Wino

You don't. You're free to do whatever you wish (within the laws).

No...I won't be free as long as I'm financially bound to a system that won't provide for me the medical treatments that I need.
I become a slave to the 'needs of the many'.

Under Bush, while my allergy treatments were illegal, at least I wasn't required to fund the health of others.....other than medicare and medicaid , that is.