Oh Bomb Us declares swine flu emergency (Federal...

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Medicine - Dentistry Forum » Oh Bomb Us declares swine flu emergency (Federal...

Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2

Oh Bomb Us declares swine flu emergency (Federal...

Author

Message

New B....

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:08 pm

Guest

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:15:27 -0400, "vaughn"
<vaughnsimonHATESSPAM at (no spam) gmail.FAKE.com> wrote:

[quote]
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock## at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hcal4a$kli$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...

CY: As a political conservative, I do try to be as factual
as possible.
OK, perhaps you would like to tell us what "facts" are behind the following
scare mongering statement: " Lets hope we
still have dentists after the public option "needs to be triggered" or some
such wording."
[/quote]
Am not familiar with such statements.
Can you provide a reference ?
[quote]
I've noticed liberals making up stuff, though.

Oh? Do you suppose it was liberals who made up the "death squads" and other
health care fear mongering we have been subjected to?
[/quote]
Nope, it was the pelosi libs that actually wrote it.
Some just renamed it as they saw it.
Did you not recall the VA 'pamphlet that was revived by the OB admin ?

How would you like to be told that despite your funds, treatment will
be denied to your loved one because the outcome percentage is low ?
And the doctor is prohibited from treating the condition due to
government statute ?

In most other cultures the elders are held in high esteem, and
honored; their opinions carefully considered.
What the young fail to grok is that their eventuality is to grow
older or die.
[quote]
Vaughn

[/quote]
Am going 'private' and if that becomes impossible, I quit.

Your doctors of the future may be no more educated than
the average Fith Grader. (Seen that show?),

and more than likely NOT "Born
(and more unlikely educated, and trained)
In The USA"...

Do you remember when that meant something ?

Cordially,
-Wubba

Jan...

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:28 pm

Guest

On Oct 26, 5:39ï¿½pm, "vaughn"

<snip spam>

Simplicio...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:08 pm

Guest

Simplicio...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:13 pm

Guest

On Oct 27, 1:52 pm, "vaughn" <vaughnsimonHATESS... at (no spam) gmail.FAKE.com>
wrote:
[quote]"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spambloc... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:hc5et5$lk3$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...

Lets hope we
still have dentists after the public option "needs to be
triggered" or some such wording.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the "public option" insurance plan is just as
unlikely to include real dentistry coverage as any other health insurance
plan. I doubt tht it will impact dentistry in any real way.
[/quote]
You are correct that the Feds have had a hands off attitude toward
dentistry. It is mindboggling what organized dentistry get's away
with. Perhaps Stormin Mormon is correct, the public option could
create increased scrutiny and regulation of dentistry.

Simplicio...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:13 pm

Guest

Simplicio...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:15 pm

Guest

On Oct 27, 3:30 pm, Steven Bornfeld <bornfeldm... at (no spam) dentaltwins.com>
wrote:
[quote]vaughn wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but the "public option" insurance plan is just as
unlikely to include real dentistry coverage as any other health insurance
plan. I doubt tht it will impact dentistry in any real way.

Vaughn

I've heard nothing about any public option mentioning dentistry. Oh,
and not in any private option either. We're pretty low on the totem pole.

[/quote]
No need to be modest. I think the public option should realize the
importance of denistry and it's regulation! Of course one thing the
Feds will have to determine is the safety of dental materials the
governement pays for.

Simplicio...

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:46 pm

Guest

[quote]On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:22:09 -0400, "vaughn"

But, watch. Dental will be next.

Unlikely.

For now, maybe. but the die is set.

Just like too many others of your political persuasion, you seem to argue
against medical reform using misinformation that you make up on the spot..
"Death squads" anyone?

Checked the consolidated 'pelosi' house bill yet ?
[/quote]
It's probably 10,00000 pages long.

[quote]From: dict.org
3 definitions found for fascism

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

fascism \fasc"ism\ (f[a^]sh"[i^]z'm) n.
1. a political theory advocating an authoritarian
hierarchical government; -- opposed to democracy and
liberalism.
[WordNet 1.5]
[/quote]
Would you call the New Deal fascist? Would you call Roosevelt fascist?

[quote]
2. an authoritarian system of government under absolute
control of a single dictator, allowing no political
opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent
[/quote]
Does this sound familiar? If your not for war you don't support the
troops?

[quote]and rigidly
controlling most industrial and economic activities.
[/quote]
Such a definition get's turned upside down when it is the industrial
complex which runs society. This is the problem we have now.
Obama cannot be taking over, because the government has "sold out" to
the industrial complex. In the last 30 years there were three
forces, the middle class, the government and the industrial/business
complex. I will admit that it could happen that the only remaining
groups with any power are the government and the industrial/business
complex, but then it is only a matter of time before the government
and the industrial/business complex become the same institution (if
they are not already). I do not believe that it is Obama's intention
however to have the government take, over, but his options are much
more limited, than say in the 70's when there was strong government
regulation of business/industry and strong enforcement of antitrust
laws by the government.

[quote]
3. Specifically, the Fascist movement led by Benito Mussolini
in Italy from 1922 to 1943.

What is a hedge fund?

From Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Fascism, pronounced /'fæ??z?m/, is an extremist political ideology
that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian
nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,
[/quote]
What is a hedge fund?

[5] and

[quote]whereby only the strong
can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in
conflict against the weak.[11]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
[/quote]
See above

[quote]1 definition found for nazi

From WordNet (r) 2.0 :

Nazi
adj 1: relating to or consistent with or typical of the
ideology
[/quote]
Remember that Obama is a member of a minority. It's in his best
interests to make sure that the government cannot supress minorities.
Yes, I've compared Bush to Hitler. Interestingly Hitler viewed himself
as a member of the majority, but was not himself German.

vaughn...

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:58 pm

Guest

"New B." <newbie at (no spam) bix.nex> wrote in message
news:45mme5502cildfcd7bl74uemj55i04n9l8 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:22:09 -0400, "vaughn"
vaughnsimonHATESSPAM at (no spam) gmail.FAKE.com> wrote:

Just like too many others of your political persuasion, you seem to argue
against medical reform using misinformation that you make up on the spot.
"Death squads" anyone?

Checked the consolidated 'pelosi' house bill yet ?
[/quote]
Yes I have, and there are still no "government death panels" in it. The concept
is still a lie. A lie is still a damn lie even when you wrap it up in a veneer
of political rhetoric. In fact, the current Health Care Reform proposal is
mostly about folks less than 65 and therefore has little to do with "end of
life" issues. Those issues have been faced for years in the Medicare system,
and the bill proposes few changes there. (You know; Medicare. That
government-ran, single payer, socialized medicine plan that enjoys over an 80%
satisfaction index?)

I guess you are talking about the Medicare pay code they are adding to allow a
doctor to be paid for providing "end of life" counseling. "The provision allows
Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the
complex and painful decisions families face when a loved one is approaching
death. The legislation would allow Medicare to pay for a counseling session
with a doctor or clinical professional once every five years. The bill calls for
such sessions to be "completely" voluntary, and prohibits the encouragement or
promotion of suicide or assisted suicide." No "death panels" there! The only
folks who could see "death panels" in something like that must be tinfoil
hat-wearing paranoids, or damn liars who wish to obstruct any meaningful dialog
on any real issues at any cost.

So why are conservatives so intent on distracting the conversation away from the
important parts of the plan? Honestly! I really wish that both sides of the
political spectrum would engage in an honest debate and both work to solve what
is now an unsustainable health care system. If they could manage that, I would
not care who got the credit. I just know that health care insurance is (by far)
my largest expense. I *can't wait* for Medicare to "kick in" for me and
Margaret. My biggest disapointment for 2009 is the low quality of the debate
concerning our health care system. Hell, for a while there we even had troops
of brainwashed folks organized for the express purpose of attending public
meetings to attempt to *stop* the debate.

But if you insist on pretending to believe in death panels, then read on. I
will give you death panels!

There is certainly room for disagreement, but I would much rather have a
government "death panel" deciding my fate than a corporate "death panel". The
government panel would be governed by Administrative Law (thus, a meaningful
appeal process). All of its procedures and regulations would have to conform to
underlying law and could not be changed without public comment. Further, if
folks did not feel that they were fairly treated by their government "death
panel", they could apply pressure to their elected representatives (political
pressure) for change. Of course, these government "death panels" would be
subject to "government in the sunshine laws" and therefore to full exposure by
the media. Every internal memo and e-mail would be a public document!

On the other hand, the corporate "death panel" could be isolated from the
political system, have no real appeal process, could operate in secret, could
change the rules as necessary, and could be relied upon to be 100% profit
motivated.

If you think that "corporate death panel" is too wild a concept, then I invite
you to look into the Medicare "Advantage" HMO plans that were set up by the Bush
administration for the purpose of inducing our parents to sign away their
Medicare health care rights in favor of corporate-ran HMO managed care. Any HMO
managed care plan is simply health care rationing by another name. The HMO can
make treatment decisions, can tinker with its drug formulary if it includes drug
benefits, and otherwise do pretty much what it wants, even if those decisions
result in the certain death of their customers.

Yes that is exactly right! The same folks who are now lying about "Government
Death Panels" have already set into operation "Corporate Death Panels" for our
parents, (and they are waiting for you and me to get a bit older...)

[quote]If you got this far, thanks for reading. Now to my points.

On the above cited definitions, are you willing to enter into a civil
debate
[/quote]
Dictionaries at 50 yards! Thanks, but I am going to respectfully decline a
fight over which of us can look up the definition that most supports our
personal view of the world. Nobody's opinion will be changed, and it would be a
distraction from the part of this thread that really interests me; the health
care debate..

Regards,
Vaughn

Dartos...

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:38 am

Guest

[quote]Yes I have, and there are still no "government death panels" in it.
[/quote]
Hey guys, let's all relax a little.

I think both sides in the government are missing the big picture.

Medical costs and treatments have gone crazy over the last 20 years.
Can't deny that.

A lot of this is because of new technology, new drugs, and then there
are the unrealistic demands of the general population, and the greed of
big business in the health care industry. Of course we shouldn't forget
the over regulation by government and the ridiculous malpractice awards
either.

It's a big, complicated mess. Lots of powerful interests have their
fingers in the pie and are going to fight to keep their profits.
Different groups are forming loose alliances deflecting blame and
promising results to protect their own interests. Most of the
government intrusion is being directed by people who don't really
understand health care in the first place. That doesn't help.

Much of the vocal 'patient side' of the issue claim health care to
be a basic right (though not listed in the Consitution) and should
be delivered 'free' and unrestricted to all citizens (or maybe even
*residents*). They also don't seem to consider that much of the
health care dollars are spent due to patient abuse of their own bodies.

Insurance, regulation, and litigation have greatly increased the cost
for the *administration* of health care which is really a huge waste
of money with little benefit to patient care.

Is any government plan really going to address all or most of these
issues? Probably not. Is it going to create a new level of
administrative beaurocracy with millions of wasted dollars? Yep.
Who will have to pay or it? US taxpayers.

IMO, any government plan is likely to be a bad one. Yet things are
already messed up. Catch 22.

D

Dave King...

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:12 am

Guest

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:58:07 -0500, "vaughn"
<vaughnsimonHATESSPAM at (no spam) gmail.FAKE.com> wrote:

[quote]
"New B." <newbie at (no spam) bix.nex> wrote in message
news:45mme5502cildfcd7bl74uemj55i04n9l8 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:22:09 -0400, "vaughn"
vaughnsimonHATESSPAM at (no spam) gmail.FAKE.com> wrote:

Just like too many others of your political persuasion, you seem to argue
against medical reform using misinformation that you make up on the spot.
"Death squads" anyone?

Checked the consolidated 'pelosi' house bill yet ?

Yes I have, and there are still no "government death panels" in it. The concept
is still a lie. A lie is still a damn lie even when you wrap it up in a veneer
of political rhetoric. In fact, the current Health Care Reform proposal is
mostly about folks less than 65 and therefore has little to do with "end of
life" issues. Those issues have been faced for years in the Medicare system,
and the bill proposes few changes there. (You know; Medicare. That
government-ran, single payer, socialized medicine plan that enjoys over an 80%
satisfaction index?)
[/quote]
The question of satisfaction is an interesting one. Taken from the
patient perspective it sounds so promising. Taken from the provider
perspective means costs are seldom covered and an entirely different
satisfaction index.

[quote]
I guess you are talking about the Medicare pay code they are adding to allow a
doctor to be paid for providing "end of life" counseling. "The provision allows
Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the
complex and painful decisions families face when a loved one is approaching
death. The legislation would allow Medicare to pay for a counseling session
with a doctor or clinical professional once every five years. The bill calls for
such sessions to be "completely" voluntary, and prohibits the encouragement or
promotion of suicide or assisted suicide." No "death panels" there! The only
folks who could see "death panels" in something like that must be tinfoil
hat-wearing paranoids, or damn liars who wish to obstruct any meaningful dialog
on any real issues at any cost.

So why are conservatives so intent on distracting the conversation away from the
important parts of the plan? Honestly! I really wish that both sides of the
political spectrum would engage in an honest debate and both work to solve what
is now an unsustainable health care system. If they could manage that, I would
not care who got the credit. I just know that health care insurance is (by far)
my largest expense. I *can't wait* for Medicare to "kick in" for me and
Margaret. My biggest disapointment for 2009 is the low quality of the debate
concerning our health care system. Hell, for a while there we even had troops
of brainwashed folks organized for the express purpose of attending public
meetings to attempt to *stop* the debate.

But if you insist on pretending to believe in death panels, then read on. I
will give you death panels!

There is certainly room for disagreement, but I would much rather have a
government "death panel" deciding my fate than a corporate "death panel". The
government panel would be governed by Administrative Law (thus, a meaningful
appeal process). All of its procedures and regulations would have to conform to
underlying law and could not be changed without public comment. Further, if
folks did not feel that they were fairly treated by their government "death
panel", they could apply pressure to their elected representatives (political
pressure) for change. Of course, these government "death panels" would be
subject to "government in the sunshine laws" and therefore to full exposure by
the media. Every internal memo and e-mail would be a public document!

On the other hand, the corporate "death panel" could be isolated from the
political system, have no real appeal process, could operate in secret, could
change the rules as necessary, and could be relied upon to be 100% profit
motivated.

If you think that "corporate death panel" is too wild a concept, then I invite
you to look into the Medicare "Advantage" HMO plans that were set up by the Bush
administration for the purpose of inducing our parents to sign away their
Medicare health care rights in favor of corporate-ran HMO managed care. Any HMO
managed care plan is simply health care rationing by another name. The HMO can
make treatment decisions, can tinker with its drug formulary if it includes drug
benefits, and otherwise do pretty much what it wants, even if those decisions
result in the certain death of their customers.

Yes that is exactly right! The same folks who are now lying about "Government
Death Panels" have already set into operation "Corporate Death Panels" for our
parents, (and they are waiting for you and me to get a bit older...)

If you got this far, thanks for reading. Now to my points.

On the above cited definitions, are you willing to enter into a civil
debate

Dictionaries at 50 yards! Thanks, but I am going to respectfully decline a
fight over which of us can look up the definition that most supports our
personal view of the world. Nobody's opinion will be changed, and it would be a
distraction from the part of this thread that really interests me; the health
care debate..

Regards,
Vaughn
[/quote]

Amatus Cremona...

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:55 pm

Guest

I kind of would like to see them discuss a government provided malpractice
insurance plan.

--
::::
Amatus Cremona
;;;;;;
"Dartos" <tuthjockey at (no spam) myturbonet.com> wrote in message
news:1257423865_9575 at (no spam) news.newsville.com...
[quote]

Yes I have, and there are still no "government death panels" in it.

Hey guys, let's all relax a little.

I think both sides in the government are missing the big picture.

Medical costs and treatments have gone crazy over the last 20 years.
Can't deny that.

A lot of this is because of new technology, new drugs, and then there
are the unrealistic demands of the general population, and the greed of
big business in the health care industry. Of course we shouldn't forget
the over regulation by government and the ridiculous malpractice awards
either.

It's a big, complicated mess. Lots of powerful interests have their
fingers in the pie and are going to fight to keep their profits. Different
groups are forming loose alliances deflecting blame and
promising results to protect their own interests. Most of the government
intrusion is being directed by people who don't really
understand health care in the first place. That doesn't help.

Much of the vocal 'patient side' of the issue claim health care to
be a basic right (though not listed in the Consitution) and should
be delivered 'free' and unrestricted to all citizens (or maybe even
*residents*). They also don't seem to consider that much of the
health care dollars are spent due to patient abuse of their own bodies.

Insurance, regulation, and litigation have greatly increased the cost
for the *administration* of health care which is really a huge waste
of money with little benefit to patient care.

Is any government plan really going to address all or most of these
issues? Probably not. Is it going to create a new level of
administrative beaurocracy with millions of wasted dollars? Yep.
Who will have to pay or it? US taxpayers.

IMO, any government plan is likely to be a bad one. Yet things are
already messed up. Catch 22.

D

[/quote]

x...

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:08 am

Guest

On Nov 5, 7:55 pm, "Amatus Cremona" <Nic... at (no spam) sottovoce.com> wrote:
[quote]I kind of would like to see them discuss a government provided malpractice
insurance plan.

AKA "Tort Reform" It isn't so much the voters that you would need to[/quote]
convince on that one, it would be the lawyers...and they are generally
the ones who get to write our new laws.

Translation 1: "good luck!".
Translation 2: "It ain't gunna happen".

Vaughn (on the road so using the crappy Google interface)

Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:37 am Science Forum Index