Finally, someone in DC with a set of balls!! No apology re..

On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:24:12 -0400, John A. wrote:

> On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:10:15 -0400, tony cooper
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:17:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> 1) Yes it is clear that in its current form, the U.S. health system
>>>> does not work.
>>>
>>>It works fine for me, and I just want Obama and the rest of those
>>>leftists to keep their sleazy hands off it. Furthermore, of all my
>>>friends and relatives I do not know a single one who isn't 100%
>>>satisfied with their present health care. Not a single one that I know
>>>of wants any part of ObamaCare.
>>
>>Using your logic, I am opposed to all research into cancer cures and
>>prevention because I don't have cancer and none of my family or friends
>>do. I am also opposed to medical treatment for STDs for the same
>>reason.
>>
>>Whatever you've got, or will get, I will be opposed to finding a cure
>>for if I don't suffer from the same problem.
>
> As I mentioned elsewhere, conservatives seem to have a rather narrow
> definition of America and Americans. I think it is a large part of why
> they don't think there's a problem. (At least for those who honestly do
> think there's no problem.)

There is indeed a problem - it simply does not warrant throwing the baby
out with the bath water!
 >> Stay informed about: Finally, someone in DC with a set of balls!! No apology re.. 

"tony cooper" wrote in message

> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:17:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
> wrote:
>
>>> 1) Yes it is clear that in its current form, the U.S. health system does
>>> not work.
>>
>>It works fine for me, and I just want Obama and the rest of those leftists
>>to keep their sleazy hands off it. Furthermore, of all my friends and
>>relatives I do not know a single one who isn't 100% satisfied with their
>>present health care. Not a single one that I know of wants any part of
>>ObamaCare.
>
> Using your logic, I am opposed to all research into cancer cures and
> prevention because I don't have cancer and none of my family or
> friends do. I am also opposed to medical treatment for STDs for the
> same reason.

I have no idea how you can so thoroughly mangle logic and pretend that
you're answering something I said.

Obviously the research and development of cancer cures had to be done before
I could benefit from it, therefore I am thoroughly in favor of all such
research and development. None of us knows about all these things ahead of
time.

If you think Obama & Co. taking over the health care of the country -- from
the people who *did* all that beneficial research and development, among
others -- is going to be of much use to you or anyone else, I can only
assume you must be one of those eager believers who actually think "Change
You Can Believe In!" and "Yes We Can!" are good, specific, detailed
announcements of all the great things The One has planned for us.

>
> Whatever you've got, or will get, I will be opposed to finding a cure
> for if I don't suffer from the same problem.

And you don't have a clue about why that doesn't work out well for you.
 >> Stay informed about: Finally, someone in DC with a set of balls!! No apology re.. 

"Irwell" wrote in message

> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:17:36 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:
>
>
>>> *first World* nations: Your problem would be handled far better.
>>
>> Not in Britain evidently, where the death rate from prostate cancer is
>> several times higher than in the U.S. -- the reason being that we get far
>> better early screening which is imperative to successful treatment.
>
> And
>> prostate cancer is a leading killer of men.
>
> That is because most are elderly anyway, that PSA scam has been debunked.
> I stopped having it 15 years ago, still going great in my 80s.

That wasn't very smart. I don't know why you think there's a "PSA scam," But
it was through regular annual PSAs that my prostate cancer was detected in
an early stage.

Your "still going great in my 80s" doesn't mean a thing. There are no
cancer-specific symptoms in the early stages; if you're not being checked
regularly you can be "still going great" right up until the time it's so
advanced it's too late to do anything about it. And prostate cancer is not a
pleasant way to die.
 >> Stay informed about: Finally, someone in DC with a set of balls!! No apology re.. 

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message

> "Neil Harrington" wrote:
>>
>>"Rol_Lei Nut" wrote in message
>>
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> Are you sure you want a government controlled health care system? I
>>>> doubt
>>>> it would be any better than the VA system after which it would be
>>>> modeled - probably worse.
>>>
>>> 1) Yes it is clear that in its current form, the U.S. health system does
>>> not work.
>>
>>It works fine for me, and I just want Obama and the rest of those leftists
>>to keep their sleazy hands off it. Furthermore, of all my friends and
>>relatives I do not know a single one who isn't 100% satisfied with their
>>present health care. Not a single one that I know of wants any part of
>>ObamaCare.
>
> You must have a very selected (or very small) circle of friends and
> relatives. After all, almost every 5th person in the US does not have
> health insurance (U.S. Census Bureau, based on data from 2007: 46
> million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65).
> Chances are this number got much worse with the downturn in the economy.
>
> On the other hand, a society must be exceptionally strong if it can
> afford to loose 45000 people annually because of missing health care.
> <quote>
> Conclusions
> Lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44789 deaths per
> year in the United States,
> </quote>
> Source: recent Harvard study, full report at
> http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf
> jue

So fix the problems with Medicaid and Medicare then bring the uninsured into
those programs, they can't or won't fix either program.
Would be interesting to see the number of deaths where insurance or the lack
thereof had no bearing.
For example deaths in route to the hospital, deaths in the home, etc.
 >> Stay informed about: Finally, someone in DC with a set of balls!! No apology re.. 

"Savageduck" wrote in message

> On 2009-10-02 19:11:23 -0700, Irwell said:
>
>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:17:36 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> *first World* nations: Your problem would be handled far better.
>>>
>>> Not in Britain evidently, where the death rate from prostate cancer is
>>> several times higher than in the U.S. -- the reason being that we get
>>> far
>>> better early screening which is imperative to successful treatment.
>>
>> And
>>> prostate cancer is a leading killer of men.
>>
>> That is because most are elderly anyway, that PSA scam has been debunked.
>> I stopped having it 15 years ago, still going great in my 80s.
>>
>> As a survivor of it myself, I am
>>> goddamn glad I live here and not over there.
>>
>>
>> Not according to this site.
>> http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/prostate/mortality/
>
> It seems you provided the evidence against your own anti-PSA argument.
>
> In the document you provided above there is the following:
> "The widespread use of PSA testing in the USA results in not only higher
> prostate cancer incidence but also a much higher proportion of early stage
> cases being diagnosed than in countries with lower levels of testing and
> this naturally leads to higher survival rates overall and lower mortality
> rates relative to incidence.
> For instance, 60-70% of the prostate cancers diagnosed in Japanese men
> have extended beyond the prostate versus only 11% in US white men."
> Also
> "A decrease in prostate cancer mortality has also been observed in the USA
> since 19915 and in Europe since 1993.6 A comparison of mortality rates in
> the USA and UK in 1975-2004, reported that mortality peaked in the early
> 1990s for both countries, but the subsequent fall in mortality until 2004
> was much greater in the USA.7
> The UK prostate cancer mortality rates by age group between 1971-2007 are
> shown in Figure 2.4. Rates for men under 84 years reached a peak in 1992
> and have declined consistently since then. Recent rates for men over 85
> had two peaks: the first in 1996 which was followed by a decline and then
> a further increase to 2003, since when the rates have fallen."
> So the PSA does have some benefit for early diagnosis and treatment.
> There is still the old statement that most men diagnosed in their 70's
> will die with prostate cancer, but not from it.
> This might also be an Insurance company alibi for withholding treatment
> based on actuarial tables.

In which case the fellow afflicted might end up wishing for an early death.

I was just under 73 when diagnosed, and started radiation treatment shortly
after.

It's very true of course that many elderly men have prostate CA and die of
something else without ever being aware of it. I have read that (based on
autopsies, I presume) 100% of men who die after age 80 have some degree of
prostate CA.
 >> Stay informed about: Finally, someone in DC with a set of balls!! No apology re.. 

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message

> "Neil Harrington" wrote:
>>
>>"Rol_Lei Nut" wrote in message
>>
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> Are you sure you want a government controlled health care system? I
>>>> doubt
>>>> it would be any better than the VA system after which it would be
>>>> modeled - probably worse.
>>>
>>> 1) Yes it is clear that in its current form, the U.S. health system does
>>> not work.
>>
>>It works fine for me, and I just want Obama and the rest of those leftists
>>to keep their sleazy hands off it. Furthermore, of all my friends and
>>relatives I do not know a single one who isn't 100% satisfied with their
>>present health care. Not a single one that I know of wants any part of
>>ObamaCare.
>
> You must have a very selected (or very small) circle of friends and
> relatives. After all, almost every 5th person in the US does not have
> health insurance (U.S. Census Bureau, based on data from 2007: 46
> million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65).

Well, none of my friends or relatives are (a) illegal aliens, (b) between
jobs, (c) able to pay for health insurance but don't want it -- and those
categories are said to be typical of the majority of the uninsured. Obama
keeps promising that (a) wouldn't be covered anyway.

> Chances are this number got much worse with the downturn in the economy.
>
> On the other hand, a society must be exceptionally strong if it can
> afford to loose 45000 people annually because of missing health care.
> <quote>
> Conclusions
> Lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44789 deaths per
> year in the United States,
> </quote>

Heh -- "as many as" is meaningless. Like the loan ads you see saying "Borrow
up to $250,000 or more." The figure means absolutely nothing, of course.
 >> Stay informed about: Finally, someone in DC with a set of balls!! No apology re.. 

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 22:29:47 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

>
>"tony cooper" wrote in message
>
>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:17:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> 1) Yes it is clear that in its current form, the U.S. health system does
>>>> not work.
>>>
>>>It works fine for me, and I just want Obama and the rest of those leftists
>>>to keep their sleazy hands off it. Furthermore, of all my friends and
>>>relatives I do not know a single one who isn't 100% satisfied with their
>>>present health care. Not a single one that I know of wants any part of
>>>ObamaCare.
>>
>> Using your logic, I am opposed to all research into cancer cures and
>> prevention because I don't have cancer and none of my family or
>> friends do. I am also opposed to medical treatment for STDs for the
>> same reason.
>
>I have no idea how you can so thoroughly mangle logic and pretend that
>you're answering something I said.

I haven't mangled anything. I see a guy who says "It (what we have
now) works fine for me" and is in complete disregard for those who are
in a position where it doesn't work fine for them.

It works fine for me, too. That doesn't mean that I am so selfish and
self-centered - as you are - that I don't see that the current system
does not provide for others.






>Obviously the research and development of cancer cures had to be done before
>I could benefit from it, therefore I am thoroughly in favor of all such
>research and development. None of us knows about all these things ahead of
>time.
>
>If you think Obama & Co. taking over the health care of the country -- from
>the people who *did* all that beneficial research and development, among
>others -- is going to be of much use to you or anyone else, I can only
>assume you must be one of those eager believers who actually think "Change
>You Can Believe In!" and "Yes We Can!" are good, specific, detailed
>announcements of all the great things The One has planned for us.
>
>>
>> Whatever you've got, or will get, I will be opposed to finding a cure
>> for if I don't suffer from the same problem.
>
>And you don't have a clue about why that doesn't work out well for you.
>

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 >> Stay informed about: Finally, someone in DC with a set of balls!! No apology re.. 

On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:22:11 -0700, Jürgen Exner wrote:

> "Neil Harrington" wrote:
>>
>>"Rol_Lei Nut" wrote in message
>>
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> Are you sure you want a government controlled health care system? I
>>>> doubt it would be any better than the VA system after which it would
>>>> be modeled - probably worse.
>>>
>>> 1) Yes it is clear that in its current form, the U.S. health system
>>> does not work.
>>
>>It works fine for me, and I just want Obama and the rest of those
>>leftists to keep their sleazy hands off it. Furthermore, of all my
>>friends and relatives I do not know a single one who isn't 100%
>>satisfied with their present health care. Not a single one that I know
>>of wants any part of ObamaCare.
>
> You must have a very selected (or very small) circle of friends and
> relatives. After all, almost every 5th person in the US does not have
> health insurance (U.S. Census Bureau, based on data from 2007: 46
> million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65).
> Chances are this number got much worse with the downturn in the economy.
>

I believe those numbers are often misquoted - that represents the total
number who have lacked insurance at some time during the year rather than
an average of the number lacking it at any one time.

> On the other hand, a society must be exceptionally strong if it can
> afford to loose 45000 people annually because of missing health care.
> <quote>
> Conclusions
> Lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44789 deaths per
> year in the United States,
> </quote>
> Source: recent Harvard study, full report at
> http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-
adults.pdf
> jue

I'd like to see one death certificate where 'lack of health insurance' is
listed as cause of death. People die without health insurance. People who
have health insurance also die.
 >> Stay informed about: Finally, someone in DC with a set of balls!! No apology re.. 

ray wrote:
>Well, for what it's worth, I have experienced health care rationing - in
>a government run program - and not with my private insurance.

Which government run program? What rationing?

> I'm
>diabetic - and when I was diagnosed, I was using only my private
>insurance. I've had absolutely no problem getting all the materials I've
>needed to handle the disease. A couple of years ago, I signed up with the
>VA (since I am a Vietnam era vet). My first visit, I was told that the VA
>would supply test strips for me to check my blood glucose twice per week.

I don't believe you.

>If you know anything about diabetes and the management thereof,

If I know anything about wingnuts is that you're all either dishonest
or stupid.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer DeleteThis @sonic.net
 >> Stay informed about: Finally, someone in DC with a set of balls!! No apology re.. 

ray wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:32:00 +0200, Rol_Lei Nut wrote:

>> 1) Yes it is clear that in its current form, the U.S. health system does
>> not work.
>
>The kicker is that for most of us, it's working fine. Yes, there are some
>folks for whom care is suboptimal.

"Some folks" is about 45,000,000. It also costs far more.

>> 2) Look at the systems used in almost all (or is it all?) of the other
>> *first World* nations: Your problem would be handled far better.
>
>Matter of opinion.

Matter of fact.

> I've seen the British system first hand (lived in
>Scotland for nearly two years) - quite frankly, I think what I have now
>is better.

But you have no basis for knowing that.

>> 3) The rumours and "facts" presented by some types of media *may* not be
>> true: Have a look into less biased sources for a better overview.
>
>If you can find some 'less biased sources' I'd be very interested. There
>is a reason it's referred to as 'the liberal media'.

The reason is that the right-wing wants the freedom to lie and one way
to do that is by accusing fair reporting of being "liberal" and
"biased".

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer DeleteThis @sonic.net
 >> Stay informed about: Finally, someone in DC with a set of balls!! No apology re.. 

Neil Harrington wrote:
>
>"Rol_Lei Nut" wrote in message
>
>> ray wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> Are you sure you want a government controlled health care system? I doubt
>>> it would be any better than the VA system after which it would be
>>> modeled - probably worse.
>>
>> 1) Yes it is clear that in its current form, the U.S. health system does
>> not work.
>
>It works fine for me, and I just want Obama and the rest of those leftists
>to keep their sleazy hands off it.

Harrington prefers that people die.

> Furthermore, of all my friends and
>relatives I do not know a single one who isn't 100% satisfied with their
>present health care.

Medical problems is the leading contributor to personal bankruptcies
in the US. Life expectancy is significantly less in the US while
costs are much higher.

>> 2) Look at the systems used in almost all (or is it all?) of the other
>> *first World* nations: Your problem would be handled far better.
>
>Not in Britain evidently, where the death rate from prostate cancer is
>several times higher than in the U.S. -

An outright lie. It's actually about the same as in the US.

> And
>prostate cancer is a leading killer of men.

Another outright lie. In 2006 prostate cancer killed about 28,000
men. Heart disease killed over 600,000.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf

>> 3) The rumours and "facts" presented by some types of media *may* not be
>> true: Have a look into less biased sources for a better overview.
>
>Facts are facts.

And lies are lies, and what YOU wrte are lies.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer.TakeThisOut@sonic.net
 >> Stay informed about: Finally, someone in DC with a set of balls!! No apology re.. 

ray wrote:

> I'd like to see one death certificate where 'lack of health insurance' is
> listed as cause of death. People die without health insurance. People who
> have health insurance also die.

In the US it can't be listed as a cause of death. There are regulations that
define the acceptable causes of death a Coroner can state for cause of
death.
 >> Stay informed about: Finally, someone in DC with a set of balls!! No apology re.. 

ray wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:22:11 -0700, Jürgen Exner wrote:
>
>> "Neil Harrington" wrote:
>>> "Rol_Lei Nut" wrote in message
>>>
>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>> Are you sure you want a government controlled health care system? I
>>>>> doubt it would be any better than the VA system after which it would
>>>>> be modeled - probably worse.
>>>> 1) Yes it is clear that in its current form, the U.S. health system
>>>> does not work.
>>> It works fine for me, and I just want Obama and the rest of those
>>> leftists to keep their sleazy hands off it. Furthermore, of all my
>>> friends and relatives I do not know a single one who isn't 100%
>>> satisfied with their present health care. Not a single one that I know
>>> of wants any part of ObamaCare.
>> You must have a very selected (or very small) circle of friends and
>> relatives. After all, almost every 5th person in the US does not have
>> health insurance (U.S. Census Bureau, based on data from 2007: 46
>> million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65).
>> Chances are this number got much worse with the downturn in the economy.
>>
>
> I believe those numbers are often misquoted - that represents the total
> number who have lacked insurance at some time during the year rather than
> an average of the number lacking it at any one time.
>
>> On the other hand, a society must be exceptionally strong if it can
>> afford to loose 45000 people annually because of missing health care.
>> <quote>
>> Conclusions
>> Lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44789 deaths per
>> year in the United States,
>> </quote>
>> Source: recent Harvard study, full report at
>> http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-
> adults.pdf
>> jue
>
> I'd like to see one death certificate where 'lack of health insurance' is
> listed as cause of death. People die without health insurance. People who
> have health insurance also die.
What a pathetic little person you are! I don't believe that I can take
any more of you contorted illogic. Plonk.
Allen
 >> Stay informed about: Finally, someone in DC with a set of balls!! No apology re..