OT: An Open Letter to President Obama

[Tony]

###

By: Lou Pritchett


Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any
of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about
you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy
League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible
signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth
growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't
understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming
others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself
with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly
denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America'
crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style
country where the government sector dominates instead of the private
sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a
government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly
capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose
that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living
in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against
certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging
you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider
opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent
and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you
do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs,
Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points
of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will
probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett


Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble
whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in
1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling &
Start Rocking the Boat.

Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the
much-circulated "open letter." "I did write the 'you scare me' letter.
I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it.
However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had
over 500,000 hits.

Confirmation link:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp

###

President Obama scares me too, for most of the same reasons.

He scares me because he has no respect for the rule of law and none of
the other branches are doing their job and checking or balancing him.
He is ramming through ill-advised policies with a message of urgency
brooking no reasoned debate on their merits. He is doing this entirely
with the force of his personality.

Where have we heard that story before? Hmmmm?

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by Tony
###
By: Lou Pritchett
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of
the others, you truly scare me.

State of perpetual fear - check. One word - diapers.

Post by Tony
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

Probably because you listen to Fox News.

Post by Tony
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy
League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible
signs of support.

Never heard of an academic scholarship? Free educations at Ivy League
schools is quite common to those who demonstrate particular talent and great
need. Maybe if you spent time in the real world youself you might run
across the concept of grants and scholarships at colleges and universities.
Private colleges being so rich are often generous to the extreme if a
student shows excpetional abilities but has no means to pay.

Post by Tony
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth
growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

Oh but being exposed to other cultures is such a terrible thing? Not like
having any world view outside of baseball and apple pie is of any benefit to
anyone.

Post by Tony
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

Neither did most presidents. In fact the last one ran 3 of them straight
into the ground. And pocketed millions in the process.

Post by Tony
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't
understand it at its core.

Neither have most presidents.

Post by Tony
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

Yeah like the administration that created the mess he inherited. 8 years of
Bush coming home to roost and in a few months it is supposed to be all
better. Typical childish attitude. We all know this whole thing started
November 3, 2008. Everything was just ducky before that.

Post by Tony
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself
with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly
denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

Yeah like serving on a board with 12 repugs who you could say the same
about. Guilt by association is what that is called.

Post by Tony
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd
and deliver this message abroad.

Blame bad politics you mean.

Post by Tony
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style
country where the government sector dominates instead of the private
sector.

Yeah, next thing you know we'll all be wearing berets and eating smelly
cheese.

Post by Tony
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a
government controlled one.

Because our "health care system" is destroying the country and bleeding it
dry while leaving 50 million people and counting out in the cold.

Post by Tony
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing
on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

Except those reserves will be exploited by multi-national companies with no
requirement to sell it to us at a favorable price. That would be
"socialism."

Post by Tony
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that
lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the
world.

Yeah by saving millions of jobs. But yours will be safe so what the hell do
you care? Of course when everyone is sop dirt poor they cannot afford to
buy a bottle of your shampoo, you blame it all on Obama too.

Post by Tony
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against
certain banks and corporations.

Yeah, right. Word on the street is Bush forced the B of A and Merrill Lynch
deal. They demand trillions in bailout and when conditions are put on it
that's extortion. If you can't trust fat cat bankers to do what's right I
mean who can you trust?

Post by Tony
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you
on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

Spending proposals to keep the economy going. When nobody has money to
spend, that leaves the government top spend. Don't like it - regulate the
hell out of those who put us into this mess. You can't have your cake and
eat it too.

Post by Tony
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider
opposing points of view from intelligent people.

Right he only has republicans on committees, in his cabinet and over for
lunch every day. And os of today the GOP has offered exactly NOTHING as an
alternative. They just obstruct everyhting in their typical knee-jerk
reactionist manner. What is there to consider?

Post by Tony
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and
omniscient.

I don't see it. Seems you put that label on him. He is immensley popuylar
and you just can't understand why. Here's a hint. YOU SUCK!

Post by Tony
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

Yeah they're being just so easy on him reporting every fart.

Post by Tony
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs,
Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of
view.

We all wish we could. But you'll have to provide some actionable
intelligence to support your claim they will.

Post by Tony
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Republicans have no idea how to govern and do not believe in governance. So
somebody actually governing for a change would look like a dictator to you.
I am sure you prefer your presidents remote, uncurious, intellectually
challenged and on vacation 40% of the time but the country is not well
served by such a "leader."

Post by Tony
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably
not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Well what else will we do with the dozens of internment camps that Bush
built?

In short - you're a lily-livered pussy who is afraid of your own shadow and
feels entitles to everything and responsible for nothing. Somehow, someway
if you leave it all up to avarice, greed and neglect something great will
emerge.

Paul

[CigarBaron]

Post by Paul M. Cook
Because our "health care system" is destroying the country and bleeding it
dry while leaving 50 million people and counting out in the cold.
Paul

Our health care system is being delivered because of the desires of
our reflexive population. They want their MRIs today and the results
by this afternoon. Our health care system is portrayed by the left as
broken. I can safely state it is not.

As far as covering our entire population I agree, we should have
universal coverage. That's under the pervue of the politicians and
has nothing to do with the health care system in general.
CigarBaron

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by Paul M. Cook
Because our "health care system" is destroying the country and bleeding it
dry while leaving 50 million people and counting out in the cold.
Paul

Our health care system is being delivered because of the desires of
our reflexive population. They want their MRIs today and the results
by this afternoon. Our health care system is portrayed by the left as
broken. I can safely state it is not.


God damn it Marc, how many times do we have to go through this?

Health care is not medical care. Alright? I mean I have made this
clarification way too many times. Health care system is the insurance
racket. Medical care in this country is great IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT.

You tell me how an uninsured person gets cancer treatments? Let's say after
20 year you lose your job and are out of work for awhile. You have no
insurance. You get cancer. Ok, what the hell are you going to do besides
crawl away and die? I'll tell you - you die. You die because you were out
of work for a while. Is that something this country should be proud of?
You lose your job and you get sick and you're only recourse is a coffin?
That is not an exaggeration - that is the reality.

Stop conflating the two it is not the same issue.

---

As far as covering our entire population I agree, we should have
universal coverage. That's under the pervue of the politicians and
has nothing to do with the health care system in general.

We aren't talking about delivery. We are talking about access and
availability. No disussion I know of changes delivery one iota. Not a bit.
It changes how it gets PAID FOR. Never having paid a dime for care you do
not know what it is like. That is not an insult. NONE of my doctors have a
CLUE what it means to pay for health care. They never, ever see that side
of it. They are as ignorant if more so than anyone I know on the subject.

Paul

[NickyK]

Post by CigarBaron

Post by Paul M. Cook
Because our "health care system" is destroying the country and bleeding it
dry while leaving 50 million people and counting out in the cold.
Paul

Our health care system is being delivered because of the desires of
our reflexive population.  They want their MRIs today and the results
by this afternoon.  Our health care system is portrayed by the left as
broken.  I can safely state it is not.
God damn it Marc, how many times do we have to go through this?
Health care is not medical care.  Alright?  I mean I have made this
clarification way too many times.  Health care system is the insurance
racket.  Medical care in this country is great  IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT.
You tell me how an uninsured person gets cancer treatments?  Let's say after
20 year you lose your job and are out of work for awhile.  You have no
insurance.  You get cancer.  Ok, what the hell are you going to do besides
crawl away and die?  I'll tell you - you die.  You die because you were out
of work for a while.  Is that something this country should be proud of?
You lose your job and you get sick and you're only recourse is a coffin?
That  is not an exaggeration - that is the reality.
Stop conflating the two  it is not the same issue.
---
As far as covering our entire population I agree, we should have
universal coverage.   That's under the pervue of the politicians and
has nothing to do with the health care system in general.
We aren't talking about delivery.  We are talking about access and
availability.  No disussion I know of changes delivery one iota.  Not a bit.
It changes how it gets PAID FOR.  Never having paid a dime for care you do
not know what it is like.  That is not an insult.  NONE of my doctors have a
CLUE what it means to pay for health care.  They never, ever see that side
of it.  They are as ignorant if more so than anyone I know on the subject.
Paul

Now I'm sure you mix acid in your Koolade......ROTFFLMFAO

[Mickey]

Post by CigarBaron

Post by Paul M. Cook
Because our "health care system" is destroying the country and bleeding it
dry while leaving 50 million people and counting out in the cold.
Paul

Our health care system is being delivered because of the desires of
our reflexive population. They want their MRIs today and the results
by this afternoon. Our health care system is portrayed by the left as
broken. I can safely state it is not.
God damn it Marc, how many times do we have to go through this?
Health care is not medical care. Alright? I mean I have made this
clarification way too many times. Health care system is the insurance
racket. Medical care in this country is great IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT.
You tell me how an uninsured person gets cancer treatments? Let's say after
20 year you lose your job and are out of work for awhile. You have no
insurance. You get cancer. Ok, what the hell are you going to do besides
crawl away and die? I'll tell you - you die. You die because you were out
of work for a while. Is that something this country should be proud of?
You lose your job and you get sick and you're only recourse is a coffin?
That is not an exaggeration - that is the reality.

Yes, it is reality, and a sad reality. But it is not the governments
job to "fix" it, either.

Post by CigarBaron
Stop conflating the two it is not the same issue.
---
As far as covering our entire population I agree, we should have
universal coverage. That's under the pervue of the politicians and
has nothing to do with the health care system in general.
We aren't talking about delivery. We are talking about access and
availability. No disussion I know of changes delivery one iota. Not a bit.
It changes how it gets PAID FOR. Never having paid a dime for care you do
not know what it is like. That is not an insult. NONE of my doctors have a
CLUE what it means to pay for health care. They never, ever see that side
of it. They are as ignorant if more so than anyone I know on the subject.
Paul

[Tony]

Post by CigarBaron

Post by Paul M. Cook
Because our "health care system" is destroying the country and bleeding it
dry while leaving 50 million people and counting out in the cold.
Paul

Our health care system is being delivered because of the desires of
our reflexive population. They want their MRIs today and the results
by this afternoon. Our health care system is portrayed by the left as
broken. I can safely state it is not.
God damn it Marc, how many times do we have to go through this?
Health care is not medical care. Alright? I mean I have made this
clarification way too many times. Health care system is the insurance
racket. Medical care in this country is great IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT.
You tell me how an uninsured person gets cancer treatments? Let's say after
20 year you lose your job and are out of work for awhile. You have no
insurance. You get cancer. Ok, what the hell are you going to do besides
crawl away and die? I'll tell you - you die. You die because you were out
of work for a while. Is that something this country should be proud of? You
lose your job and you get sick and you're only recourse is a coffin? That is
not an exaggeration - that is the reality.
Stop conflating the two it is not the same issue.
---
As far as covering our entire population I agree, we should have
universal coverage. That's under the pervue of the politicians and
has nothing to do with the health care system in general.
We aren't talking about delivery. We are talking about access and
availability. No disussion I know of changes delivery one iota. Not a bit.
It changes how it gets PAID FOR. Never having paid a dime for care you do
not know what it is like. That is not an insult. NONE of my doctors have a
CLUE what it means to pay for health care. They never, ever see that side of
it. They are as ignorant if more so than anyone I know on the subject.

Why, exactly, should I pay for your cancer treatment?

[Miss Elaine Eos]

Post by Tony
Why, exactly, should I pay for your cancer treatment?

So his kids will pay for your kids' cancer treatment.

Misc "it's only fair." ;)

[Tony]

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Tony
Why, exactly, should I pay for your cancer treatment?

So his kids will pay for your kids' cancer treatment.
Misc "it's only fair." ;)

Shit, his kids are paying for my Chevrolets now. Life doesn't get
better than this. Keep them presses rolling!!!

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Tony
Why, exactly, should I pay for your cancer treatment?

So his kids will pay for your kids' cancer treatment.
Misc "it's only fair." ;)

Shit, his kids are paying for my Chevrolets now. Life doesn't get better
than this. Keep them presses rolling!!!

Be a good rfepug and build your own car. I mean if yu ant to drive you
should do it yourself or go without. Buying a car is paying for somebody
else's cancer treatments because you are paying for their insurance.

Paul

[Joe]

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Tony
Why, exactly, should I pay for your cancer treatment?

So his kids will pay for your kids' cancer treatment.
Misc "it's only fair." ;)

Shit, his kids are paying for my Chevrolets now. Life doesn't get better
than this. Keep them presses rolling!!!

Be a good rfepug and build your own car. I mean if yu ant to drive you
should do it yourself or go without. Buying a car is paying for somebody
else's cancer treatments because you are paying for their insurance.

Voluntarily.

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by Joe

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Tony
Why, exactly, should I pay for your cancer treatment?

So his kids will pay for your kids' cancer treatment.
Misc "it's only fair." ;)

Shit, his kids are paying for my Chevrolets now. Life doesn't get better
than this. Keep them presses rolling!!!

Be a good rfepug and build your own car. I mean if yu ant to drive you
should do it yourself or go without. Buying a car is paying for somebody
else's cancer treatments because you are paying for their insurance.

Voluntarily.
--

And if a tax paid program replaced a fee based program, for much less money,
and it had the effect of lowering costs for goods and services throughout
the whole country and making the country more secure as a whole and better
equipped to compete in the new world order that is a bad thing how? The
best things we've ever had in this country came from shared commitment and a
belief that we are in it together.

Paul

[Joe]

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Joe

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Tony
Why, exactly, should I pay for your cancer treatment?

So his kids will pay for your kids' cancer treatment.
Misc "it's only fair." ;)

Shit, his kids are paying for my Chevrolets now. Life doesn't get better
than this. Keep them presses rolling!!!

Be a good rfepug and build your own car. I mean if yu ant to drive you
should do it yourself or go without. Buying a car is paying for somebody
else's cancer treatments because you are paying for their insurance.

Voluntarily.
--

And if a tax paid program replaced a fee based program, for much less money,
and it had the effect of lowering costs for goods and services throughout
the whole country and making the country more secure as a whole and better
equipped to compete in the new world order that is a bad thing how? The
best things we've ever had in this country came from shared commitment and a
belief that we are in it together.

There are few - to 0 - cases where government programs have ever been
cheaper than the private programs they replaced, and they remove
choice from the equation.

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by Joe

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Joe

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Tony
Why, exactly, should I pay for your cancer treatment?

So his kids will pay for your kids' cancer treatment.
Misc "it's only fair." ;)

Shit, his kids are paying for my Chevrolets now. Life doesn't get better
than this. Keep them presses rolling!!!

Be a good rfepug and build your own car. I mean if yu ant to drive you
should do it yourself or go without. Buying a car is paying for somebody
else's cancer treatments because you are paying for their insurance.

Voluntarily.
--

And if a tax paid program replaced a fee based program, for much less money,
and it had the effect of lowering costs for goods and services throughout
the whole country and making the country more secure as a whole and better
equipped to compete in the new world order that is a bad thing how? The
best things we've ever had in this country came from shared commitment and a
belief that we are in it together.

There are few - to 0 - cases where government programs have ever been
cheaper than the private programs they replaced, and they remove
choice from the equation.

Oh I can think of a great many that are cheaper than private sector.
Private programs are operated not only for profit but to sell more stocks
and pay dividends. Private programs are vastly more expensive which is why
we pay the highest amount anywhere in the world for health care and get the
least for it.

Simply this, if the private sector could make it work, it would work. As it
is, it is destroying the country, driving costs up, killing jobs and giving
other countries a huge advantage over us.

It is not only a moral imperative it is a national imperative. Without it,
we will simply be ruined and within a very few years.

Paul

[Miss Elaine Eos]

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Joe
There are few - to 0 - cases where government programs have ever been
cheaper than the private programs they replaced, and they remove
choice from the equation.

Oh I can think of a great many that are cheaper than private sector.

I'll bet a dollar and a fine cigar that you can't name ONE.

Post by Paul M. Cook
It is not only a moral imperative it is a national imperative. Without it,
we will simply be ruined and within a very few years.

Why haven't we been ruined by it over the past 200+ years? What's so
different about right-this-minute?

[Buck Turgidson]

Post by Miss Elaine Eos
Why haven't we been ruined by it over the past 200+ years? What's so
different about right-this-minute?

Health care is much more expensive now due to technological
advances...but also because of the consolidation of health care into
massive corporations.

(As an aside: just read today that Eli Lilly has been found to be
ghostwriting the scholarly articles approving of its meds, including
Zyprexa, which not only didn't help with dementia among the elderly but
may have hastened their deaths.)

The profit motive is now primary in health care, where at one time
doctors actually got in it to cure people. Growth is the main issue.
Somewhere in the 80s it became more important to "grow" your business
rather than to just make profits. You not only had to make your profit
every year, you had to expand your market share and expand the rate at
which you were gaining market share. Shareholders became insatiable
because they got the idea that 100% year-over-year dividend increases
were somehow normal. This is why you get insurance companies denying
necessary medical procedures under any technicalities they can think of.

Greed has gotten the health care business into the shape it's in. It's
the executives whose bonuses depend on growth, the salesmen on
commission, the doctors who like the freebies, and the insurance
companies which have become behemoths. Personally, I can't wait for some
sort of new government health care plan. As many have said, would you
rather your health care decision be made by your doctor and paid for by
your government...or made by some pink-collar schlub in a cubicle in a
building a thousand miles away, whose job depends on how many cases he
can deny?

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by Buck Turgidson

Post by Miss Elaine Eos
Why haven't we been ruined by it over the past 200+ years? What's so
different about right-this-minute?

Health care is much more expensive now due to technological
advances...but also because of the consolidation of health care into
massive corporations.

Which also brings in massive waste, massive overcharging and the need to
every year be bigger than the last or your stock value will decline. Also,
the insurers lost HUGE in the stock market bust and expected increases will
be devastating come October. Then you have the fact that we now have the
world's first billionaire CEO compliments of United Health. Executive pay
is out of control and a massive drain on the system. Insurers own full on
monopolies within states. In almost every state there is but 1 main
insurer. They have no competition whatsoever and no pressure to control
costs. It is out of control.

Post by Buck Turgidson
(As an aside: just read today that Eli Lilly has been found to be
ghostwriting the scholarly articles approving of its meds, including
Zyprexa, which not only didn't help with dementia among the elderly but
may have hastened their deaths.)

The FDA currently allows the pharms to conduct their own trials.

Post by Buck Turgidson
The profit motive is now primary in health care, where at one time
doctors actually got in it to cure people. Growth is the main issue.
Somewhere in the 80s it became more important to "grow" your business
rather than to just make profits. You not only had to make your profit
every year, you had to expand your market share and expand the rate at
which you were gaining market share. Shareholders became insatiable
because they got the idea that 100% year-over-year dividend increases
were somehow normal. This is why you get insurance companies denying
necessary medical procedures under any technicalities they can think of.

So many people find out that their gold plated insurance is not so good when
they need it the most. Like when they are being treated for cancer and get
a cancellation notice. Happens every day to many thousands of people.

Post by Buck Turgidson
Greed has gotten the health care business into the shape it's in. It's
the executives whose bonuses depend on growth, the salesmen on
commission, the doctors who like the freebies, and the insurance
companies which have become behemoths. Personally, I can't wait for some
sort of new government health care plan. As many have said, would you
rather your health care decision be made by your doctor and paid for by
your government...or made by some pink-collar schlub in a cubicle in a
building a thousand miles away, whose job depends on how many cases he
can deny?

Yep. I worked health care for a short period in 95. What I saw was
absolutely shocking. They had more ways to skim money from the system than
you can imagine. Seems everyone at the top was just raking in the untaxed
freebies and the huge piles of cash. No expense was spared on the top.

Paul

[Miss Elaine Eos]

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Buck Turgidson

Post by Miss Elaine Eos
Why haven't we been ruined by it over the past 200+ years? What's so
different about right-this-minute?

Health care is much more expensive now due to technological
advances...but also because of the consolidation of health care into
massive corporations.

Which also brings in massive waste, massive overcharging and the need to
every year be bigger than the last

And your idea for rectifying this situation is to consolidate health
care even further, into one super-efficient, prudent-spending
organization...?!

[Miss Elaine Eos]

Post by Paul M. Cook
And if a tax paid program replaced a fee based program, for much less money,
and it had the effect of lowering costs for goods and services throughout
the whole country and making the country more secure as a whole and better
equipped to compete in the new world order that is a bad thing how?

Not at all.

But we're not talking about that -- we're talking about your national
health-care schemes.

[Tony]

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Joe

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Tony
Why, exactly, should I pay for your cancer treatment?

So his kids will pay for your kids' cancer treatment.
Misc "it's only fair." ;)

Shit, his kids are paying for my Chevrolets now. Life doesn't get better
than this. Keep them presses rolling!!!

Be a good rfepug and build your own car. I mean if yu ant to drive you
should do it yourself or go without. Buying a car is paying for somebody
else's cancer treatments because you are paying for their insurance.

Voluntarily.
--

And if a tax paid program replaced a fee based program, for much less money,
and it had the effect of lowering costs for goods and services throughout the
whole country and making the country more secure as a whole and better
equipped to compete in the new world order that is a bad thing how? The best
things we've ever had in this country came from shared commitment and a
belief that we are in it together.

...and the waters would recede, the whales would repopulate the seas,
all the world would live in peace and harmony, and we'd all hold hands
and sing a rousing refrain of "kumbaya" in perfect harmony. :)

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Joe

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Tony
Why, exactly, should I pay for your cancer treatment?

So his kids will pay for your kids' cancer treatment.
Misc "it's only fair." ;)

Shit, his kids are paying for my Chevrolets now. Life doesn't get better
than this. Keep them presses rolling!!!

Be a good rfepug and build your own car. I mean if yu ant to drive you
should do it yourself or go without. Buying a car is paying for somebody
else's cancer treatments because you are paying for their insurance.

Voluntarily.
--

And if a tax paid program replaced a fee based program, for much less
money, and it had the effect of lowering costs for goods and services
throughout the whole country and making the country more secure as a
whole and better equipped to compete in the new world order that is a bad
thing how? The best things we've ever had in this country came from
shared commitment and a belief that we are in it together.

...and the waters would recede, the whales would repopulate the seas, all
the world would live in peace and harmony, and we'd all hold hands and
sing a rousing refrain of "kumbaya" in perfect harmony. :)

I'm sure you prefer the teachings of Jesus where we all shoot everyone to
death who offends us, live in caves and tend only to :our own" and wage war
whenever oil prices get to high.

Paul

[Tony]

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Joe

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Tony
Why, exactly, should I pay for your cancer treatment?

So his kids will pay for your kids' cancer treatment.
Misc "it's only fair." ;)

Shit, his kids are paying for my Chevrolets now. Life doesn't get better
than this. Keep them presses rolling!!!

Be a good rfepug and build your own car. I mean if yu ant to drive you
should do it yourself or go without. Buying a car is paying for somebody
else's cancer treatments because you are paying for their insurance.

Voluntarily.
--

And if a tax paid program replaced a fee based program, for much less
money, and it had the effect of lowering costs for goods and services
throughout the whole country and making the country more secure as a
whole and better equipped to compete in the new world order that is a bad
thing how? The best things we've ever had in this country came from
shared commitment and a belief that we are in it together.

...and the waters would recede, the whales would repopulate the seas, all
the world would live in peace and harmony, and we'd all hold hands and sing
a rousing refrain of "kumbaya" in perfect harmony. :)

I'm sure you prefer the teachings of Jesus where we all shoot everyone to
death who offends us, live in caves and tend only to :our own" and wage war
whenever oil prices get to high.

"Do you think I [Jesus] came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you,
but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided
against each other, three against two and two against three. They will
be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against
daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against
daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." -- Luke
12:51-53

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Tony

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Joe

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Tony
Why, exactly, should I pay for your cancer treatment?

So his kids will pay for your kids' cancer treatment.
Misc "it's only fair." ;)

Shit, his kids are paying for my Chevrolets now. Life doesn't get better
than this. Keep them presses rolling!!!

Be a good rfepug and build your own car. I mean if yu ant to drive you
should do it yourself or go without. Buying a car is paying for somebody
else's cancer treatments because you are paying for their insurance.

Voluntarily.
--

And if a tax paid program replaced a fee based program, for much less
money, and it had the effect of lowering costs for goods and services
throughout the whole country and making the country more secure as a
whole and better equipped to compete in the new world order that is a
bad thing how? The best things we've ever had in this country came
from shared commitment and a belief that we are in it together.

...and the waters would recede, the whales would repopulate the seas,
all the world would live in peace and harmony, and we'd all hold hands
and sing a rousing refrain of "kumbaya" in perfect harmony. :)

I'm sure you prefer the teachings of Jesus where we all shoot everyone to
death who offends us, live in caves and tend only to :our own" and wage
war whenever oil prices get to high.

"Do you think I [Jesus] came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but
division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against
each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided,
father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and
daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and
daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." -- Luke 12:51-53

Always understood that to mean non-Christina families had to be split up if
necessary if they protested a members conflicting desire to embrace
Christianity, as in the story of Perpetua.

Paul

[Miss Elaine Eos]

Post by Paul M. Cook
the teachings of Jesus where we all shoot everyone to
death who offends us, live in caves and tend only to :our own" and wage war
whenever oil prices get to high.

That's from _Sermon On The Mount_, right...?

[Buck Turgidson]

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Paul M. Cook
the teachings of Jesus where we all shoot everyone to
death who offends us, live in caves and tend only to :our own" and wage war
whenever oil prices get to high.

That's from _Sermon On The Mount_, right...?

Yup. Right after, "Blessed are the cheesemakers..."

[Tom S.]

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Paul M. Cook
the teachings of Jesus where we all shoot everyone to
death who offends us, live in caves and tend only to :our own" and wage war
whenever oil prices get to high.

That's from _Sermon On The Mount_, right...?

I think it was _Rocky Picture Horror Show_.

At least it was for me.

[Miss Elaine Eos]

Post by Paul M. Cook
Be a good rfepug and build your own car. I mean if yu ant to drive you
should do it yourself or go without. Buying a car is paying for somebody
else's cancer treatments because you are paying for their insurance.

The DIFFERENCE is: buying a car that includes the cost of the maker's
cancer treatment is VOLUNTARY. The objection most of us have to YOUR
plan is that you make such payments MANDATORY.

Perhaps I will choose to purchase a car from a company that does not
offer its employees free cancer treatments. See?

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by Tony

Post by CigarBaron

Post by Paul M. Cook
Because our "health care system" is destroying the country and bleeding it
dry while leaving 50 million people and counting out in the cold.
Paul

Our health care system is being delivered because of the desires of
our reflexive population. They want their MRIs today and the results
by this afternoon. Our health care system is portrayed by the left as
broken. I can safely state it is not.
God damn it Marc, how many times do we have to go through this?
Health care is not medical care. Alright? I mean I have made this
clarification way too many times. Health care system is the insurance
racket. Medical care in this country is great IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT.
You tell me how an uninsured person gets cancer treatments? Let's say
after 20 year you lose your job and are out of work for awhile. You have
no insurance. You get cancer. Ok, what the hell are you going to do
besides crawl away and die? I'll tell you - you die. You die because
you were out of work for a while. Is that something this country should
be proud of? You lose your job and you get sick and you're only recourse
is a coffin? That is not an exaggeration - that is the reality.
Stop conflating the two it is not the same issue.
---
As far as covering our entire population I agree, we should have
universal coverage. That's under the pervue of the politicians and
has nothing to do with the health care system in general.
We aren't talking about delivery. We are talking about access and
availability. No disussion I know of changes delivery one iota. Not a
bit. It changes how it gets PAID FOR. Never having paid a dime for care
you do not know what it is like. That is not an insult. NONE of my
doctors have a CLUE what it means to pay for health care. They never,
ever see that side of it. They are as ignorant if more so than anyone I
know on the subject.

Why, exactly, should I pay for your cancer treatment?

Typical moronic response. Let's see here - ah yes - L45 on the jukebox.

Paul

[Tony]

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Tony

Post by CigarBaron

Post by Paul M. Cook
Because our "health care system" is destroying the country and bleeding it
dry while leaving 50 million people and counting out in the cold.
Paul

Our health care system is being delivered because of the desires of
our reflexive population. They want their MRIs today and the results
by this afternoon. Our health care system is portrayed by the left as
broken. I can safely state it is not.
God damn it Marc, how many times do we have to go through this?
Health care is not medical care. Alright? I mean I have made this
clarification way too many times. Health care system is the insurance
racket. Medical care in this country is great IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT.
You tell me how an uninsured person gets cancer treatments? Let's say
after 20 year you lose your job and are out of work for awhile. You have
no insurance. You get cancer. Ok, what the hell are you going to do
besides crawl away and die? I'll tell you - you die. You die because you
were out of work for a while. Is that something this country should be
proud of? You lose your job and you get sick and you're only recourse is a
coffin? That is not an exaggeration - that is the reality.
Stop conflating the two it is not the same issue.
---
As far as covering our entire population I agree, we should have
universal coverage. That's under the pervue of the politicians and
has nothing to do with the health care system in general.
We aren't talking about delivery. We are talking about access and
availability. No disussion I know of changes delivery one iota. Not a
bit. It changes how it gets PAID FOR. Never having paid a dime for care
you do not know what it is like. That is not an insult. NONE of my
doctors have a CLUE what it means to pay for health care. They never,
ever see that side of it. They are as ignorant if more so than anyone I
know on the subject.

Why, exactly, should I pay for your cancer treatment?

Typical moronic response. Let's see here - ah yes - L45 on the jukebox.

Answer the fucking question. Why, exactly should I pay for your cancer
treatments? This is at the heart of the whole universal health care
argument.

If you just die, it costs a hell of a lot less for me.

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by Tony

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Tony

Post by CigarBaron

Post by Paul M. Cook
Because our "health care system" is destroying the country and bleeding it
dry while leaving 50 million people and counting out in the cold.
Paul

Our health care system is being delivered because of the desires of
our reflexive population. They want their MRIs today and the results
by this afternoon. Our health care system is portrayed by the left as
broken. I can safely state it is not.
God damn it Marc, how many times do we have to go through this?
Health care is not medical care. Alright? I mean I have made this
clarification way too many times. Health care system is the insurance
racket. Medical care in this country is great IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT.
You tell me how an uninsured person gets cancer treatments? Let's say
after 20 year you lose your job and are out of work for awhile. You
have no insurance. You get cancer. Ok, what the hell are you going to
do besides crawl away and die? I'll tell you - you die. You die
because you were out of work for a while. Is that something this
country should be proud of? You lose your job and you get sick and
you're only recourse is a coffin? That is not an exaggeration - that
is the reality.
Stop conflating the two it is not the same issue.
---
As far as covering our entire population I agree, we should have
universal coverage. That's under the pervue of the politicians and
has nothing to do with the health care system in general.
We aren't talking about delivery. We are talking about access and
availability. No disussion I know of changes delivery one iota. Not a
bit. It changes how it gets PAID FOR. Never having paid a dime for
care you do not know what it is like. That is not an insult. NONE of
my doctors have a CLUE what it means to pay for health care. They
never, ever see that side of it. They are as ignorant if more so than
anyone I know on the subject.

Why, exactly, should I pay for your cancer treatment?

Typical moronic response. Let's see here - ah yes - L45 on the jukebox.

Answer the fucking question. Why, exactly should I pay for your cancer
treatments? This is at the heart of the whole universal health care
argument.

Because you already ARE - that's why. You pay for it in every single thing
you buy, every service, every utility, everything. And when you are out of
work, and in need, such a system as UC will pay for YOUR care as well. An
dall for a fraction of what you pay now, because now you not only pay for
your insurance but he insurance of a hell of a lot of other people too.

Post by Tony
If you just die, it costs a hell of a lot less for me.

That of course is classic repug for you.

Paul

[Miss Elaine Eos]

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by Tony
Answer the fucking question. Why, exactly should I pay for your cancer
treatments? This is at the heart of the whole universal health care
argument.

Because you already ARE - that's why. You pay for it in every single thing
you buy, every service, every utility, everything.

Huh?

Misc "Paul is such a forward thinker that it's often damned near
impossible for us mere mortals to keep up..."

[CigarBaron]

Post by CigarBaron
"
We aren't talking about delivery.  We are talking about access and
availability.  No disussion I know of changes delivery one iota.  Not a bit.
It changes how it gets PAID FOR.  Never having paid a dime for care you do
not know what it is like.   >
Paul

I've paid over $1000 in the past year for expenses not covered by my
plan for my family and myself. Of course, I treat myself, i.e. order
my own blood and tests. But my insurance doesn't cover all and the
hospital system that owns me still charges me by balance. I pay for
health care and incidentals as well.

Paul, I didn't bring the subject up. But when someone implies the
system is broken, they don't know the system. BTW, I'll pull rank
here, I am going to assume, albeit incorrectly possibly, that you
don't and I do know the system. You've been burned by some bad
experiences, I'm sorry. You're certainly not alone. But with 99% of
medical delivery going on and doing well, although we're not batting
1000, we're doing OK.

Now, there still is no problem in general with access to health
care...just payment. With 60% of personal bankrupsies claiming health
payments are a significant part, I do believe we have a problem than
can be helped by universal coverage (not socialization.)

[MLF]

Post by CigarBaron
Paul, I didn't bring the subject up. But when someone implies the

system is broken, they don't know the system...But with 99% of
medical delivery going on and doing well, although we're not batting
1000, we're doing OK.

Post by CigarBaron
Now, there still is no problem in general with access to health

care...just payment. With 60% of personal bankrupsies claiming health
payments are a significant part, I do believe we have a problem than
can be helped by universal coverage (not socialization.)


Marc, I have to go with Paul on this one. You certainly know more about
medical care that I do. But that does not mean that physicians know the
personal effects of the "access to health care" and "payment". You are the
one providing the health care, but the patient is providing the payment, and
therefore the access.

Whether we all admit it or not, if we can't pay for it then we don't get it.
Except for emergency treatment or very minimal treatment at a public or
"free" clinic, chronic problems like diabetes, heart disease, circulatory
issues, addictions, and the like kill thousands of people in the US every
year because of poor or nonexistent treatment. IMO, it's not the very poor
that are victims, it's the "in betweens" - not extremely poor and therefore
eligible for some sort of government program, but not wealthy enough to buy
insurance.

For example, New Orleans primary industries are tourism, shipping, and
shipbuilding. These industries create thousands of so-so paying jobs, over
half with no health benefits. If I were the average US family of 4 with two
working adults, the cost of private insurance would cost me more than one
paycheck a month. That's not affordable, practical or possible.

We need to do something. I'm not entirely sure what it is. I hope that the
current efforts come up with a working solution for everyone. However, we
agree that the solution is not "socialized" medicine (what ever that is).


Michael
New Orleans, Louisiana USA ***@REMOVEsprynet.com
========================================================

[NickyK]

Post by MLF
system is broken, they don't know the system...But with 99% of
medical delivery going on and doing well, although we're not batting
1000, we're doing OK.

Post by CigarBaron
Now, there still is no problem in general with access to health

care...just payment.  With 60% of personal bankrupsies claiming health
payments are a significant part, I do believe we have a problem than
can be helped by universal coverage (not socialization.)
Marc, I have to go with Paul on this one. You certainly know more about
medical care that I do. But that does not mean that physicians know the
personal effects of the "access to health care" and "payment". You are the
one providing the health care, but the patient is providing the payment, and
therefore the access.
Whether we all admit it or not, if we can't pay for it then we don't get it.
Except for emergency treatment or very minimal treatment at a public or
"free" clinic, chronic problems like diabetes, heart disease, circulatory
issues, addictions, and the like kill thousands of people in the US every
year because of poor or nonexistent treatment. IMO, it's not the very poor
that are victims, it's the "in betweens" - not extremely poor and therefore
eligible for some sort of government program, but not wealthy enough to buy
insurance.
For example, New Orleans primary industries are tourism, shipping, and
shipbuilding. These industries create thousands of so-so paying jobs, over
half with no health benefits. If I were the average US family of 4 with two
working adults, the cost of private insurance would cost me more than one
paycheck a month. That's not affordable, practical or possible.
We need to do something. I'm not entirely sure what it is. I hope that the
current efforts come up with a working solution for everyone. However, we
agree that the solution is not "socialized" medicine (what ever that is).
Michael
========================================================

You Paul & Buck are all sos.....Medicaid & SSI were setup for those
who don't have pay-as-you-go access but both are going bust so let's
just throw more money at it (down a rat hole)!
If the Federal Government would just get out of the way, free clinics
& charity would help those folks who don't have pay-as-you-go access.
It worked fine in the past but some fool didn't want to say a prayer
or wait an hour so the liberals stepped in & look at the mess! We also
need to bring back state run mental instructions & clean up the
streets. You liberals don't want those back because you're afraid
you'll be sent to one & that's where most of you would be happy. God
knows a happy liberal is a miserable liberal.....ROTFLMFAO

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by MLF

Post by CigarBaron
Paul, I didn't bring the subject up. But when someone implies the

system is broken, they don't know the system...But with 99% of
medical delivery going on and doing well, although we're not batting
1000, we're doing OK.

Post by CigarBaron
Now, there still is no problem in general with access to health

care...just payment. With 60% of personal bankrupsies claiming health
payments are a significant part, I do believe we have a problem than
can be helped by universal coverage (not socialization.)
Marc, I have to go with Paul on this one. You certainly know more about
medical care that I do. But that does not mean that physicians know the
personal effects of the "access to health care" and "payment". You are the
one providing the health care, but the patient is providing the payment,
and therefore the access.
Whether we all admit it or not, if we can't pay for it then we don't get
it. Except for emergency treatment or very minimal treatment at a public
or "free" clinic, chronic problems like diabetes, heart disease,
circulatory issues, addictions, and the like kill thousands of people in
the US every year because of poor or nonexistent treatment. IMO, it's not
the very poor that are victims, it's the "in betweens" - not extremely
poor and therefore eligible for some sort of government program, but not
wealthy enough to buy insurance.
For example, New Orleans primary industries are tourism, shipping, and
shipbuilding. These industries create thousands of so-so paying jobs, over
half with no health benefits. If I were the average US family of 4 with
two working adults, the cost of private insurance would cost me more than
one paycheck a month. That's not affordable, practical or possible.
We need to do something. I'm not entirely sure what it is. I hope that the
current efforts come up with a working solution for everyone. However, we
agree that the solution is not "socialized" medicine (what ever that is).

Call it what you will, but it works all over the world. A great many
countries use single payer/universal car and they do better, there economies
are not being strained, their people outlive us, they have a low infant
mortality rate and they are better equiped to compete in the world. We can
and should duplicate that here. Everyone in nobody out. If China can
provide health care to 1.2 billion people, we can provide it to 1/4 that.
And this country will be much the better for it. As it is in a few years
medical care will consume 1/6th of the GDO. That is not a sustainable
number and it would only grow bigger from that.

It does not matter how good the health care/delivery is - if the health
insurance/access is ot there it is of no use to you. A country that permits
health care to be a perquisite only of the well healed is no society at all.
The same care should go to a person out of work as it does for a person
living off his trust fund.

Paul

[Mickey]

Post by Paul M. Cook
The same care should go to a person out of work as it does for a person
living off his trust fund.

Why?

[Tom S.]

Post by Paul M. Cook
The same care should go to a person out of work as it does for a person
living off his trust fund.

Why?

Now there's an "Apples - Oranges" comparison!!!

No, more like Apples-to-Corn Chex".

[NickyK]

Call it what you will, but it works all over the world.  A great many
countries use single payer/universal car and they do better, there economies
are not being strained, their people outlive us, they have a low infant
mortality rate and they are better equiped to compete in the world. > - Show quoted text -

Move to one of those countries (PLEASE) & you'll learn why they want
to come here for health care!

[Bill Barnes]

Post by Paul M. Cook
Call it what you will, but it works all over the world.

Paul,

How many countries have you lived in? I have lived in five and I would take
the U.S. system - as it is, anytime - over any of the others. Of course I
am fortunate enough to be insured through my company. I do pay a share
through payroll deduction along with the other expenses (deductible,
non-network coverage at a lower rate, co-pays, etc.) but I have seen the
other side in different versions and in different cultures. Definitely
adequate for some things and definitely frustrating or downright scary for
others. In fact, I have flown home for surgery because of the quality of
health care in the U.S. In other words, I knew exactly what I was getting,
when I was getting it and from whom, by returning for the surgery.

Bill

[CigarBaron]

Post by Paul M. Cook
Call it what you will, but it works all over the world.

Paul,
How many countries have you lived in?  I have lived in five and I would take
the U.S. system - as it is, anytime - over any of the others.   > Bill

Bill speaks the truth...I just couldn't begin to answer Paul given his
totally wrong comments. Thanks Bill.
CigarBaron

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by Paul M. Cook
Call it what you will, but it works all over the world.

Paul,
How many countries have you lived in? I have lived in five and I would
take
the U.S. system - as it is, anytime - over any of the others. > Bill

Bill speaks the truth...I just couldn't begin to answer Paul given his
totally wrong comments. Thanks Bill.

---

Bill would take our system if he had no insurance? Bill, would you really
choose death or complkete financial ruin over being treated in a hell hole
like Canada or France? Be honest now. I don;t see 80K of them dropping
dead every year from lack of insurance, their life spans decreasing, thei
infant mortaloty dropping in fact they beat us hands down on those poiumnts
and more.

And again, my point is - heaven help you if you need medical care in this
country and you have not enough money or no insurance. You *do not* want to
be in that position.

My totally wrong comments on what, Marc? I've never complained about YOUR
side of the equation other than to bitch about hospital procedures for the
uninsured which you have no control of. You know less about how your
patients acquire and are treated by their insurance companies than anyone
else because you are so tightly insulated from it. You just know the chick
in the tight skirt sends out our bills and fills out the forms. Same as my
docs - clueless. You're like the rest of them. I wish I could find that
article written by a cardiologist whose was on vacationing this country and
had no proof of insurance and his son got deathly ill and needed to be
admitted to a hospital. They treated him like dirt. It was quite the eye
opener. Of cuorse 2 days later when he got the proof that all changed.
They being the hospital staff and not the attending physicians. I've told
you many times, if you can't get to the doctors you're screwed.

I really thimk I pissed you off which explains the tin ear syndrome. It's a
fact - most doctors just do not have a clue about the insurance side of it
other than they get paid late and less than they bill for. Prescribe
yourself something and we'll talk again.

Paul

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by Bill Barnes

Post by Paul M. Cook
Call it what you will, but it works all over the world.

Paul,
How many countries have you lived in? I have lived in five and I would
take the U.S. system - as it is, anytime - over any of the others. Of
course I am fortunate enough to be insured through my company. I do pay a
share through payroll deduction along with the other expenses (deductible,
non-network coverage at a lower rate, co-pays, etc.) but I have seen the
other side in different versions and in different cultures. Definitely
adequate for some things and definitely frustrating or downright scary
for others. In fact, I have flown home for surgery because of the quality
of health care in the U.S. In other words, I knew exactly what I was
getting, when I was getting it and from whom, by returning for the
surgery.

I know the Canadian system well through years of discussing it with
Canadians I know. They love it and none of them would trade it for ours. I
would have no problem being treated in Canada. Ditto for France. Great
Britain, too. What you don;t see in that country is 10s of thousands of
them flocking to India for medical care. You do see 10s of thousands of
Americans doing that. While it is true that in the US we do have some of
the world's best treatments available, they are often too expensive even for
insurance companies to pay for. Fine if you can write a check for it.
Other countries are fast taking the lead, like Germany which is becoming the
world leader in cancer treatments.

I did experience what I considered outstanding medical care first hand once
back in 03. But the only reason I got it was because I knew the VP at the
hospital who ordered me admitted.

Otherwise I would have died.

Paul

[Miss Elaine Eos]

Post by Bill Barnes
How many countries have you lived in? I have lived in five and I would take
the U.S. system - as it is, anytime - over any of the others.

Out of curiosity, what are the others?

[Bill Barnes]

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Bill Barnes
How many countries have you lived in? I have lived in five and I would take
the U.S. system - as it is, anytime - over any of the others.

Out of curiosity, what are the others?

Answered via email.

Bill

[CigarBaron]

Call it what you will, but it works all over the world.  A great many
countries use single payer/universal car and they do better, there economies
are not being strained,
Paul- Hide quoted text -

....oh my God.

CigarBaron

[Paul M. Cook]

Call it what you will, but it works all over the world. A great many
countries use single payer/universal car and they do better, there economies
are not being strained,
Paul- Hide quoted text -

....oh my God.

Facts are facts, Marc. You know of the WHO studies, too. Yuo know where
the US is placed.

Paul

[Mickey]

Post by CigarBaron

Call it what you will, but it works all over the world. A great many
countries use single payer/universal car and they do better, there economies
are not being strained,
Paul- Hide quoted text -

....oh my God.
Facts are facts, Marc. You know of the WHO studies, too. Yuo know where
the US is placed.
Paul

Yes, and we also know what criteria were used to create those bogus
rankings, too.

[CigarBaron]

Post by CigarBaron

Call it what you will, but it works all over the world. A great many
countries use single payer/universal car and they do better, there economies
are not being strained,
Paul- Hide quoted text -

....oh my God.
Facts are facts, Marc.  You know of the WHO studies, too.  Yuo know where
the US is placed.
Paul

You can cook those figures in a number of ways. Bottom line is that
we have a pretty good system here that is not broken.
CigarBaron

[Alex W.]

"CigarBaron" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2d76f132-8df8-44f3-a0f4-***@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...


You can cook those figures in a number of ways. Bottom line
is that
we have a pretty good system here that is not broken.

============

There are some figures which are pretty unequivocal. In
particular, I am thinking of life expectancy data which show
that despite the different healthcare setups, the US is not
succeeding in keeping its citizens alive for longer than
those countries which spend a whole lot less and do it via
the state.

[Miss Elaine Eos]

Post by Alex W.
There are some figures which are pretty unequivocal. In
particular, I am thinking of life expectancy data which show
that despite the different healthcare setups, the US is not
succeeding in keeping its citizens alive for longer than
those countries which spend a whole lot less and do it via
the state.

But that's sort of the point, isn't it?

If you take the top-10 life-expectancy countries, they're all pretty
close to each other, the differences being measured in months, on
average. So it sort of doesn't seem to matter which health-care they
use; they've all pretty much topped out the life-expectancy thing. (I
think it's safe to assume that something OTHER THAN health-care accounts
for the minor variations at the top of the range.)

Hence, what you get for paying extra is additional comfort and
convenience.

For whatever reason, folks seem to really like the US system. Not to
hear them gripe about it, but to watch their patterns in terms of where
they go when the chips are really down...

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by CigarBaron
You can cook those figures in a number of ways. Bottom line is that
we have a pretty good system here that is not broken.
============
There are some figures which are pretty unequivocal. In particular, I am
thinking of life expectancy data which show that despite the different
healthcare setups, the US is not succeeding in keeping its citizens alive
for longer than those countries which spend a whole lot less and do it via
the state.

Our infant mortality is higher than a great many third world countries.

Paul

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by CigarBaron

Call it what you will, but it works all over the world. A great many
countries use single payer/universal car and they do better, there economies
are not being strained,
Paul- Hide quoted text -

....oh my God.
Facts are facts, Marc. You know of the WHO studies, too. Yuo know where
the US is placed.
Paul

You can cook those figures in a number of ways. Bottom line is that
we have a pretty good system here that is not broken.


When 50 million becomes 60 will you still say that? When the cost of
insuring a family of 4 goes into the 30K range will you say that then?
These costs are destroying not only people's lives but the economy too.
Hard to afford anything when your take home pay is less than your insurance
premium. And letting people die because they have pre-existing conditions
is about as heartless a thing any country can do to its citizens. How may
companies will go belly up due to rising health insurance costs before you
admit we have a problem?

So beg to differ, but the system is seriously broken and in need of a ground
up rebuild.

Paul

[Bill Barnes]

Post by CigarBaron

Post by CigarBaron

Call it what you will, but it works all over the world. A great many
countries use single payer/universal car and they do better, there economies
are not being strained,
Paul- Hide quoted text -

....oh my God.
Facts are facts, Marc. You know of the WHO studies, too. Yuo know where
the US is placed.
Paul

You can cook those figures in a number of ways. Bottom line is that
we have a pretty good system here that is not broken.
When 50 million becomes 60 will you still say that? When the cost of
insuring a family of 4 goes into the 30K range will you say that then?
These costs are destroying not only people's lives but the economy too.
Hard to afford anything when your take home pay is less than your
insurance premium. And letting people die because they have pre-existing
conditions is about as heartless a thing any country can do to its
citizens. How may companies will go belly up due to rising health
insurance costs before you admit we have a problem?

<snip>

Paul,

How many companies have gone belly up due primarily to health insurance
costs? And why wouldn't a company seek out a more reasonably priced group
plan by shopping around each year to lower their costs on employee benefits?
And, if what you say is true about a billion dollar CEO at UHC, why
wouldn't other insurance companies work on their own cost cutting which
would mean less salary for top executives in order to compete for more
business?

I agree that some lawyers and some insurance companies are contributing to
higher costs but why does this has to be solved by the government? All you
are asking for is less personal control and choice, more bureaucracy, more
time to wait for treatment and if not at a higher cost monetarily - at least
at the cost of efficiency and of the value of the care received.

Bill

[CigarBaron]

Post by MLF
Marc, I have to go with Paul on this one. You certainly know more about
medical care that I do. But that does not mean that physicians know the
personal effects of the "access to health care" and "payment". You are the
one providing the health care, but the patient is providing the payment, and
therefore the access.
Marc, I have to go with Paul on this one. You certainly know more about
medical care that I do. But that does not mean that physicians know the
personal effects of the "access to health care" and "payment". You are the
one providing the health care, but the patient is providing the payment, and
therefore the access.

You both make excellent points. However it is the insurance company
that provides the majority of payment, not the patient except for
copays and non-coverables. We as physicians not only provide the
care, we spend all of the money, in that, we order the tests and
provide the services that require payment. Even the least policy-
educated physician understands many of the intricacies of the system
that bypass the average patient/user/customer. Most patient's gain
their knowledge of the system by their own anecdotal experiences and
the bullshit that they read in papers or hear on the news. We as
physicians are bombarded by the experiences of our patient population
as a whole and snippets from our government via our specialty
societies.

Now, just to sling my credentials about a bit, and to provide some
measure of chest beating, I've been involved in political medicine at
the local/state/national level for 28 years. I've sat on numerous
commissions and committees, have been the past president of the PA FP
medical society, and currently sit on a PA governor's commission on
insurance formulating the groundwork for insurance outcomes data
transmission, and the seamless information sharing between insurers.
All the insurance players are on this commission (about 15 corporate
heads) and, ahem, me and 2 other physicians (!) From the almost
worthless jargon that those corporate insurances sling around, we
physicians understand that they don't get it. I know more about what
to do with health care than I'd venture to guess 90% of the
politicians out there, including Obama. I'm not governed by political
ideology, just patient care/physician payment/tort reform. Those are
the biggies. Obama just wants to create a civil war among physicians
with a payment reform system that hurts everyone and wants to play
political trump cards with perceived completion of campaign
promises. I'm not going to get into that but believe me, Obama is
not mandated by patient satisfaction or care: I am! He is not
motivated by a good system of medical care for the country: I am. He
doesn't get it: I do. He will however divide the house of medicine
irrevocably, which I've tried to save for 28 years. Finally, he's the
one who has not paid for health insurance, nor have our legislators.
They don't get it, but again, I do because I've been there, done that,
etc. etc. etc.

CigarBaron

[MLF]

Post by CigarBaron
You both make excellent points. However it is the insurance company

that provides the majority of payment, not the patient except for
copays and non-coverables. We as physicians not only provide the
care, we spend all of the money, in that, we order the tests and
provide the services that require payment. Even the least policy-
educated physician understands many of the intricacies of the system
that bypass the average patient/user/customer. Most patient's gain
their knowledge of the system by their own anecdotal experiences and
the bullshit that they read in papers or hear on the news. We as
physicians are bombarded by the experiences of our patient population
as a whole and snippets from our government via our specialty
societies.


Marc, I certainly didn't mean to disparage your understanding of medical
problems and health care. Again, you know more than I do - more than most
politicians as well.

But your point that "it is the insurance company that provides the majority
of payment, not the patient except for copays and non-coverables" is
incorrect. That's only true for people who have insurance in the first
place. I'm guessing that those are the majority of folks that you provide
care for. But those folks are not my point of concern.

The cost of insurance is certainly high, but that's really another issue. My
point, and I believe that the current administration's focus, concerns
persons with no health insurance and who lack the resources to get any.


Michael
New Orleans, Louisiana USA ***@REMOVEsprynet.com
========================================================

[Miss Elaine Eos]

Post by MLF
But your point that "it is the insurance company that provides the majority
of payment, not the patient except for copays and non-coverables" is
incorrect. That's only true for people who have insurance in the first
place.

Actually, it's not even true for those who are insured. Insurance
companies are not charitable foundations -- they're in it for profit.
*BIG* profit! The insureds pay ALL of the costs, plus a big healthy
profit to the insurance companies. They just distribute all this cost
(plus rake) between them.

100 people get insurance.
1 of them gets sick,needs $90 worth of medical treatment.
The insurance company pays $85, the sick guy pays $5.
All 100 people pay $1 in premiums.

From the doctor's POV, the insurance company paid $85, the insured paid
$5 and "practically all the money came from the insurance company."

From a more encompassing POV, the insureds paid a total of $105, of
which $90 went to the doctor. "Every last nickel came from the
insured's pockets."

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by CigarBaron

Post by CigarBaron
You both make excellent points. However it is the insurance company

that provides the majority of payment, not the patient except for
copays and non-coverables. We as physicians not only provide the
care, we spend all of the money, in that, we order the tests and
provide the services that require payment. Even the least policy-
educated physician understands many of the intricacies of the system
that bypass the average patient/user/customer. Most patient's gain
their knowledge of the system by their own anecdotal experiences and
the bullshit that they read in papers or hear on the news. We as
physicians are bombarded by the experiences of our patient population
as a whole and snippets from our government via our specialty
societies.
Marc, I certainly didn't mean to disparage your understanding of medical
problems and health care. Again, you know more than I do - more than most
politicians as well.
But your point that "it is the insurance company that provides the
majority of payment, not the patient except for copays and non-coverables"
is incorrect. That's only true for people who have insurance in the first
place. I'm guessing that those are the majority of folks that you provide
care for. But those folks are not my point of concern.
The cost of insurance is certainly high, but that's really another issue.
My point, and I believe that the current administration's focus, concerns
persons with no health insurance and who lack the resources to get any.

If the Obama plan comes to fruition it includes the status quo as an option.
Some, though, look farther down the road and see Mao jackets and forced
labor re-education camps once everyone has access to affordable medical care
when they need it. The Russians couldn't destroy us, but universal health
care will be the death of this country.

Such is the rhetoric one hears on the subject.

Paul

[Mickey]

Post by Paul M. Cook

Post by CigarBaron

Post by CigarBaron
You both make excellent points. However it is the insurance company

that provides the majority of payment, not the patient except for
copays and non-coverables. We as physicians not only provide the
care, we spend all of the money, in that, we order the tests and
provide the services that require payment. Even the least policy-
educated physician understands many of the intricacies of the system
that bypass the average patient/user/customer. Most patient's gain
their knowledge of the system by their own anecdotal experiences and
the bullshit that they read in papers or hear on the news. We as
physicians are bombarded by the experiences of our patient population
as a whole and snippets from our government via our specialty
societies.
Marc, I certainly didn't mean to disparage your understanding of medical
problems and health care. Again, you know more than I do - more than most
politicians as well.
But your point that "it is the insurance company that provides the
majority of payment, not the patient except for copays and non-coverables"
is incorrect. That's only true for people who have insurance in the first
place. I'm guessing that those are the majority of folks that you provide
care for. But those folks are not my point of concern.
The cost of insurance is certainly high, but that's really another issue.
My point, and I believe that the current administration's focus, concerns
persons with no health insurance and who lack the resources to get any.

If the Obama plan comes to fruition it includes the status quo as an option.
Some, though, look farther down the road and see Mao jackets and forced
labor re-education camps once everyone has access to affordable medical care
when they need it. The Russians couldn't destroy us, but universal health
care will be the death of this country.
Such is the rhetoric one hears on the subject.
Paul

Don't forget that under Hitlary Clintong's health care plan, going to
a doctor that you weren't assigned to and paying cash for treatment
was a FELONY.

Hence our level of discomfort with the Democraps view of state-run
health care.

Of course there's also the perfectly valid question "Do you really
want your medical care handled by the same people who brought you the
DMV?"

[CigarBaron]

Post by MLF
But your point that "it is the insurance company that provides the majority
of payment, not the patient except for copays and non-coverables" is
incorrect. That's only true for people who have insurance in the first
place. I'm guessing that those are the majority of folks that you provide
care for.  But those folks are not my point of concern.

Post by MLF
Michael

========================================================

OK yes, I see your point.
CigarBaron

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by MLF
Marc, I have to go with Paul on this one. You certainly know more about
medical care that I do. But that does not mean that physicians know the
personal effects of the "access to health care" and "payment". You are the
one providing the health care, but the patient is providing the payment, and
therefore the access.
Marc, I have to go with Paul on this one. You certainly know more about
medical care that I do. But that does not mean that physicians know the
personal effects of the "access to health care" and "payment". You are the
one providing the health care, but the patient is providing the payment, and
therefore the access.

<You both make excellent points.

Despite being totally wrong? I gotta remember that trick for my next test.

Post by MLF
However it is the insurance company

that provides the majority of payment, not the patient except for
copays and non-coverables.

And iof the patient is uninsured? Say because his job was sent to China and
his UI ran out?

Post by MLF
We as physicians not only provide the

care, we spend all of the money, in that, we order the tests and
provide the services that require payment. Even the least policy-
educated physician understands many of the intricacies of the system
that bypass the average patient/user/customer. Most patient's gain
their knowledge of the system by their own anecdotal experiences and
the bullshit that they read in papers or hear on the news. We as
physicians are bombarded by the experiences of our patient population
as a whole and snippets from our government via our specialty
societies.

It's not about the physicians, Marc. Show me where in the national debate
it is? I can't find it.

Post by MLF
Now, just to sling my credentials about a bit, and to provide some

measure of chest beating, I've been involved in political medicine at
the local/state/national level for 28 years. I've sat on numerous
commissions and committees, have been the past president of the PA FP
medical society, and currently sit on a PA governor's commission on
insurance formulating the groundwork for insurance outcomes data
transmission, and the seamless information sharing between insurers.
All the insurance players are on this commission (about 15 corporate
heads) and, ahem, me and 2 other physicians (!) From the almost
worthless jargon that those corporate insurances sling around, we
physicians understand that they don't get it. I know more about what
to do with health care than I'd venture to guess 90% of the
politicians out there, including Obama. I'm not governed by political
ideology, just patient care/physician payment/tort reform. Those are
the biggies. Obama just wants to create a civil war among physicians
with a payment reform system that hurts everyone and wants to play
political trump cards with perceived completion of campaign
promises.

Yeah, I guess its impossible he has some other motivation. Civil War.
Check. What a bastard, huh?

Post by MLF
I'm not going to get into that but believe me, Obama is

not mandated by patient satisfaction or care: I am! He is not
motivated by a good system of medical care for the country: I am. He
doesn't get it: I do. He will however divide the house of medicine
irrevocably, which I've tried to save for 28 years. Finally, he's the
one who has not paid for health insurance, nor have our legislators.
They don't get it, but again, I do because I've been there, done that,
etc. etc. etc.

And so it is all about re-election then? So if he puts in a crappy system
he still gets- reelected? DO I read that correctly? Seems to me Marc, he
has every motivation to get it right (save for the special interests bribing
the people in power to affect the change) and he has everything to lose as
do democrats, if it fails. You make him sound like some evil genius hell
bent on destruction. Well we're pretty darn close to self destruction now
as it is.

Since *his* plan is being worked on by committees, just what about the
unreleased plan is it you don't like? Is it the promise of rationing?
Ain't in there that I know of. How about severe cuts in physician rates?
Nope, can't find that either. OK, how about a bureaucratic agency of a
million people making decisions about what treatment is OK? Nope, not in
there.

Oh excuse me, we have that already as it is. The status quo is almost 50
million people are uninsured, 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills,
people can't get insurance even when they can afford it, insurance companies
drop people who need care, businesses are going bankrupt, the cost of the
current system is unsustainable with double digit increases ever single
year, the economy will collapse under the weight of the system because so
much money will be spent on insurance and medical care that people won't be
able to buy much else.

Paul

[Miss Elaine Eos]

Post by Paul M. Cook
Despite being totally wrong? I gotta remember that trick for my next test.

Interesting use of the word "remember"...

<G>

[CigarBaron]

"
Oh excuse me, we have that already as it is.  The status quo is almost 50
million people are uninsured, 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills,
people can't get insurance even when they can afford it, insurance companies
drop people who need care, businesses are going bankrupt, the cost of the
current system is unsustainable with double digit increases ever single
year, the economy will collapse under the weight of the system because so
much money will be spent on insurance and medical care that people won't be
able to buy much else.
Paul

Universal coverage would help solve this, as I've discussed all
along. In that sense, the problems you point out are real, and you're
correct. However it's not the doctors' fault in this. We're doing
our job. The general population isn't by demanding overutilization of
testing, by not accepting rationing of care, by suing at every
opportunity, etc.
CigarBaron

[Paul M. Cook]

"
Oh excuse me, we have that already as it is. The status quo is almost 50
million people are uninsured, 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills,
people can't get insurance even when they can afford it, insurance companies
drop people who need care, businesses are going bankrupt, the cost of the
current system is unsustainable with double digit increases ever single
year, the economy will collapse under the weight of the system because so
much money will be spent on insurance and medical care that people won't be
able to buy much else.
Paul

Universal coverage would help solve this, as I've discussed all
along. In that sense, the problems you point out are real, and you're
correct. However it's not the doctors' fault in this. We're doing
our job. The general population isn't by demanding overutilization of
testing, by not accepting rationing of care, by suing at every
opportunity, etc.


Pardon me, Marc, but I have bent over backwards to disabuse you of this
notion that the doctors are to blame. I must say it is a more arduous task
than I would have anticipated. I simply do not know why you feel your
profession is being victimized here. It's al about the insurance, and the
uninsured and the best method to pay for all of it.

Obama spoke the the AMA today in down and dirty terms and he said caps on
MPI are not in the works for this year. That is all I have heard about how
this will directly affect doctors. The rest is all about how to get
coverage for these without and to stem the rising costs which btw do not
trickle don to doctors as increased revenue.

Paul

[CigarBaron]

Post by Paul M. Cook
<You both make excellent points.
Despite being totally wrong?  I gotta remember that trick for my next test.
Paul

You're correct, you're totally wrong. :-)
CigarBaron

[Tony]

Post by CigarBaron

Post by MLF
Marc, I have to go with Paul on this one. You certainly know more about
medical care that I do. But that does not mean that physicians know the
personal effects of the "access to health care" and "payment". You are the
one providing the health care, but the patient is providing the payment, and
therefore the access.
Marc, I have to go with Paul on this one. You certainly know more about
medical care that I do. But that does not mean that physicians know the
personal effects of the "access to health care" and "payment". You are the
one providing the health care, but the patient is providing the payment, and
therefore the access.

You both make excellent points. However it is the insurance company
that provides the majority of payment, not the patient except for
copays and non-coverables. We as physicians not only provide the
care, we spend all of the money, in that, we order the tests and
provide the services that require payment. Even the least policy-
educated physician understands many of the intricacies of the system
that bypass the average patient/user/customer. Most patient's gain
their knowledge of the system by their own anecdotal experiences and
the bullshit that they read in papers or hear on the news. We as
physicians are bombarded by the experiences of our patient population
as a whole and snippets from our government via our specialty
societies.
Now, just to sling my credentials about a bit, and to provide some
measure of chest beating, I've been involved in political medicine at
the local/state/national level for 28 years. I've sat on numerous
commissions and committees, have been the past president of the PA FP
medical society, and currently sit on a PA governor's commission on
insurance formulating the groundwork for insurance outcomes data
transmission, and the seamless information sharing between insurers.
All the insurance players are on this commission (about 15 corporate
heads) and, ahem, me and 2 other physicians (!) From the almost
worthless jargon that those corporate insurances sling around, we
physicians understand that they don't get it. I know more about what
to do with health care than I'd venture to guess 90% of the
politicians out there, including Obama. I'm not governed by political
ideology, just patient care/physician payment/tort reform. Those are
the biggies. Obama just wants to create a civil war among physicians
with a payment reform system that hurts everyone and wants to play
political trump cards with perceived completion of campaign
promises. I'm not going to get into that but believe me, Obama is
not mandated by patient satisfaction or care: I am! He is not
motivated by a good system of medical care for the country: I am. He
doesn't get it: I do. He will however divide the house of medicine
irrevocably, which I've tried to save for 28 years. Finally, he's the
one who has not paid for health insurance, nor have our legislators.
They don't get it, but again, I do because I've been there, done that,
etc. etc. etc.

I believe the problem with the system is that the consumer is isolated
from the costs of the care. I have been trying to get my blood
pressure under control for a few months. This entailed a visit to the
doctor every 6 weeks for a blood pressure reading and an evaluation. I
pay an $18 co-pay that I can easily afford.

What I started doing is every two weeks, faxing my blood pressure
readings to the doctor and allowing her to make a quick decision if
she'd like without having to see me. This saves a bunch of money. But
I really have no incentive except that my BP is running 150-160 /
100-105 (not immediately dangerous, but long term damaging).

Were I paying for the treatment, I would not go as often, and I'd shop
around for a doctor who would treat me more cheaply (have a nurse take
a BP if needed without a full office visit) and would prescribe me
medicines at lower cost that would still do the job (the last Dr was
pushing Tekturna which was a $30 copay. You can imagine the cost to
the system).

There was an interesting segment on a talk radio show I was listening
to. The host was talking about LASIK surgery, and how it is not
covered by medicare, medicaid or most private insurance companies. The
prices have been plummeting. This is due to competition and the going
after of a limited number of LASIK dollars.

We certiainly can't bring down costs by insulating people even more
from the true cost of their service. The downside of "Obama-care"
would be that to contain costs, they'd either have to reduce payments
to doctors disincentivizing the best and the brightest from going into
medicine, or rationing the care.

[Miss Elaine Eos]

In article

Post by CigarBaron

Post by CigarBaron
We aren't talking about delivery.  We are talking about access and
availability.  No disussion I know of changes delivery one iota.  Not a bit.
It changes how it gets PAID FOR.  Never having paid a dime for care you do
not know what it is like.

I've paid over $1000 in the past year for expenses not covered by my
plan for my family and myself.

Not to mention that, one way or another, you pay for the plan, itself.

Post by CigarBaron
With 60% of personal bankrupsies claiming health
payments are a significant part, I do believe we have a problem than
can be helped by universal coverage (not socialization.)

So, what would "universal coverage" look like, to you?

[NickyK]

Post by Miss Elaine Eos
In article

Post by CigarBaron

Post by CigarBaron
We aren't talking about delivery.  We are talking about access and
availability.  No disussion I know of changes delivery one iota.  Not a bit.
It changes how it gets PAID FOR.  Never having paid a dime for care you do
not know what it is like.

I've paid over $1000 in the past year for expenses not covered by my
plan for my family and myself.

Not to mention that, one way or another, you pay for the plan, itself.

Post by CigarBaron
With 60% of personal bankrupsies claiming health
payments are a significant part, I do believe we have a problem than
can be helped by universal coverage (not socialization.)

So, what would "universal coverage" look like, to you?
--
Please remove your pants if you want to send me e-mail.
Lots of good cigar info, the ASC Birthday page, FAQs, vendors and more at
<http://www.ManyFriends.com/Cigars/>
A "great" review is one with the name of the cigar before the review text
in the body of the post. :)

LOL....It will look like what it is, a rat hole! He's just sucking-up
to liberal side of ASC trying to stay relevant to both sides! Isn’t
that what all good liberal/homosexuals do?

[CigarBaron]

Post by Miss Elaine Eos
So, what would "universal coverage" look like, to you?
--
Please remove your pants if you want to send me e-mail.

A tiered coverage system along with a tiered payment system depending
upon outcomes. For instance, if you have a basic government plan and
you have prostate cancer you get surgery. You want seed implants plus
external radiation, you fork over $60,000 personally. You have better
insurance you get the bells and whistles. All in all, both treatments
have the same outcomes, just one less invasive and more expensive.
You think that's discrimination? The rich get "better" treatments?
Maybe, but outcomes are the same. You have more money, you get the
cadillac, they get the Chevy. Both cars drive. The way it works now,
the basic government plans cover the more expensive treatments. This
should stop.

We need to do this for every treatment: cost/outcomes data. Then,
you have a Cadiallac plan that covers? Good. You're on the
government dole and you want the misperceived better treatment? You
get the money and pay.

It will work and we'll save a whole mess of money.

CigarBaron

[MLF]

Post by CigarBaron
A tiered coverage system along with a tiered payment system depending

upon outcomes. For instance, if you have a basic government plan and
you have prostate cancer you get surgery. You want seed implants plus
external radiation, you fork over $60,000 personally. You have better
insurance you get the bells and whistles. All in all, both treatments
have the same outcomes, just one less invasive and more expensive.
You think that's discrimination? The rich get "better" treatments?
Maybe, but outcomes are the same. You have more money, you get the
cadillac, they get the Chevy. Both cars drive. The way it works now,
the basic government plans cover the more expensive treatments. This
should stop.

Post by CigarBaron
We need to do this for every treatment: cost/outcomes data. Then,

you have a Cadiallac plan that covers? Good. You're on the
government dole and you want the misperceived better treatment? You
get the money and pay.

Post by CigarBaron
It will work and we'll save a whole mess of money.

Marc, I'm sure this sounds like a good plan to you, unless you or your wife
or child is handed the "Chevy" plan because you can't pay more. Then the
inequity would be more than apparent.

The plan you describe is exactly what socialized medicine would (in essence)
become. Government supported health care would be the Chevy plan: less
expensive, less holistic, and less effective, while those with cash or
insurance would get better care. Setting up a multi-tiered system is just
another form of rationing (the more you pay the more you get), and it's not
going to get much traction with citizens. That's pretty much why most
Americans are against government health plans. They've seen rationing,
two-tiered systems, and second-rate care for the masses in other countries
and want no part of it.

The irony of all this discussion is that the state and federal governments
provide health care for the poor now! They just camophlage it by picking up
the deficits created when the uninsured go to public hospitals. It's a very
bad way to do business, it cheats the uninsured out of care for chronic
problems, and clogs emergency services.

In fact, all we're talking about doing is getting the government(s) to buy a
minimal health insurance policy for the poor and working poor. I hope that
that's the thrust of the current health care discussion in Washington. If it
evolves in to creating a government version of Aetna, it will go down in
flames - as Hillary found out 15 years ago.


Michael
New Orleans, Louisiana USA ***@REMOVEsprynet.com
========================================================

[Miss Elaine Eos]

Post by MLF
Marc, I'm sure this sounds like a good plan to you, unless you or your wife
or child is handed the "Chevy" plan because you can't pay more. Then the
inequity would be more than apparent.

What part of the inequity do you imagine Marc does not see, now?

[Alex W.]

Post by CigarBaron

Post by CigarBaron
A tiered coverage system along with a tiered payment
system depending

upon outcomes. For instance, if you have a basic
government plan and
you have prostate cancer you get surgery. You want seed
implants plus
external radiation, you fork over $60,000 personally. You
have better
insurance you get the bells and whistles. All in all,
both treatments
have the same outcomes, just one less invasive and more
expensive.
You think that's discrimination? The rich get "better"
treatments?
Maybe, but outcomes are the same. You have more money,
you get the
cadillac, they get the Chevy. Both cars drive. The way
it works now,
the basic government plans cover the more expensive
treatments. This
should stop.

Post by CigarBaron
We need to do this for every treatment: cost/outcomes
data. Then,

you have a Cadiallac plan that covers? Good. You're on
the
government dole and you want the misperceived better
treatment? You
get the money and pay.

Post by CigarBaron
It will work and we'll save a whole mess of money.

Marc, I'm sure this sounds like a good plan to you, unless
you or your wife or child is handed the "Chevy" plan
because you can't pay more. Then the inequity would be
more than apparent.
The plan you describe is exactly what socialized medicine
would (in essence) become. Government supported health
care would be the Chevy plan: less expensive, less
holistic, and less effective, while those with cash or
insurance would get better care. Setting up a multi-tiered
system is just another form of rationing (the more you pay
the more you get), and it's not going to get much traction
with citizens. That's pretty much why most Americans are
against government health plans. They've seen rationing,
two-tiered systems, and second-rate care for the masses in
other countries and want no part of it.

I have experience with both systems, and many of the
differences are cosmetic or a matter of luxury rather than
medical need. For example, as a private patient I will get
a single room but on the state I would have to share my room
with several other patients; on one scheme, I get food that
is healthy and nutritious -- on the other, I am served
dinner that is healthy, nutritious and rather more tasty.
The drugs are the same, the actual surgery is the same and
in most cases the doctors themselves are the same.

Post by CigarBaron
The irony of all this discussion is that the state and
federal governments provide health care for the poor now!
They just camophlage it by picking up the deficits created
when the uninsured go to public hospitals. It's a very bad
way to do business, it cheats the uninsured out of care
for chronic problems, and clogs emergency services.

In addition, it is very bad for all cocnerned because it
does not provide for preventative medicine. In the long
term, it is far better for individuals and far less costly
for all health care providers to keep people healthy in the
first place or to catch diseases as early as possible ...
but someone has to pay for it.

[Paul M. Cook]

In addition, it is very bad for all cocnerned because it does not provide
for preventative medicine. In the long term, it is far better for
individuals and far less costly for all health care providers to keep
people healthy in the first place or to catch diseases as early as
possible ... but someone has to pay for it.

That's the big thing. I want a colonoscopy for cancer screening, as well as
to see how the old colon is holding up after its crisis. Uninsured cost at
the hospital is $10,000.00. That is for a simple room, not a surgical
theater, for 1 hour plus 1 attending nurse and 1 attending technician.
Doctor fees is 800.00

You can see the problem.

Paul

[MLF]

Post by Paul M. Cook
That's the big thing. I want a colonoscopy for cancer screening, as well
as to see how the old colon is holding up after its crisis. Uninsured
cost at the hospital is $10,000.00. That is for a simple room, not a
surgical theater, for 1 hour plus 1 attending nurse and 1 attending
technician. Doctor fees is 800.00
You can see the problem.

I was amazed some years ago when I got a bill for some procedure (I don't
recall what it was) that had two columns of costs. On the left was the item
description followed by the uninsured cost then the cost as covered by my
insurance. The cost to me was minimal (just the deductbile). However, if I
had no insurance I would be required to pay the "uninsured cost". It was 2 -
3 times as much as the insured one!

The reasoning was that the insurance companies pre-negotiate expenses with
the hospitals, and that's what they will pay and the hospitals have agreed
to take. If I were uninsured, I would be paying the full "retail" rate. (The
same happens with Medicare/Medicaid, only the agreed prices are waaaaaay
lower.)

From that I determined that either uninsured patients were subsidising
insured ones, or that the services could be provided to everyone at the the
lower rates but the additional income was available to the hospitals so they
took it. I believe the first alternative is the more likely.

Just one more reason to do something about health care.

(BTW: The hospitals no longer send out bills with both set of figures shown.
I wonder why...)


Michael
New Orleans, Louisiana USA ***@REMOVEsprynet.com
========================================================

[Miss Elaine Eos]

Post by Paul M. Cook
That's the big thing. I want a colonoscopy

Well, who doesn't?!

;)

[Mark Reinhold]

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:50:49 -0700, Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Paul M. Cook
That's the big thing. I want a colonoscopy

Well, who doesn't?!
;)

I dont. And until some MD says I need one, I am not going there

[Alex W.]

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Paul M. Cook
That's the big thing. I want a colonoscopy

Well, who doesn't?!
;)

Marc's patients?

:-)

[CigarBaron]

Post by Alex W.

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

That's the big thing.  I want a colonoscopy

Well, who doesn't?!
  ;)

Marc's patients?
:-)

When I finish with them they beg for one. :-)
CigarBaron

[MLF]

That's the big thing. I want a colonoscopy

You're correct. A colonoscopy IS the big thing, placed in a location where
big things really should be.

I recall when I got mine, after they administered the demerol they might as
well have driven a school bus up there and I would not have cared. My only
regret is that they didn't administer the demerol before I had to take the
laxatives - far worse than the examination.


Michael
New Orleans, Louisiana USA ***@REMOVEsprynet.com
========================================================

[Tony]

Post by Paul M. Cook

In addition, it is very bad for all cocnerned because it does not provide
for preventative medicine. In the long term, it is far better for
individuals and far less costly for all health care providers to keep
people healthy in the first place or to catch diseases as early as possible
... but someone has to pay for it.

That's the big thing. I want a colonoscopy for cancer screening, as well as
to see how the old colon is holding up after its crisis. Uninsured cost at
the hospital is $10,000.00. That is for a simple room, not a surgical
theater, for 1 hour plus 1 attending nurse and 1 attending technician. Doctor
fees is 800.00
You can see the problem.

The problem is, you pulled the numbers out of your ass (excuse the
colonoscopy pun):

"For those not covered by health insurance, the cost of colonoscopy
varies by provider and geographic region, usually ranging from $2,010
to $3,764, with an average of $3,081, according to Blue Cross Blue
Shield of North Carolina."

http://www.costhelper.com/cost/health/colonoscopy.html

You overstated it by a factor of about three.

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by Tony

Post by Paul M. Cook

In addition, it is very bad for all cocnerned because it does not
provide for preventative medicine. In the long term, it is far better
for individuals and far less costly for all health care providers to
keep people healthy in the first place or to catch diseases as early as
possible ... but someone has to pay for it.

That's the big thing. I want a colonoscopy for cancer screening, as well
as to see how the old colon is holding up after its crisis. Uninsured
cost at the hospital is $10,000.00. That is for a simple room, not a
surgical theater, for 1 hour plus 1 attending nurse and 1 attending
technician. Doctor fees is 800.00
You can see the problem.

The problem is, you pulled the numbers out of your ass (excuse the
"For those not covered by health insurance, the cost of colonoscopy varies
by provider and geographic region, usually ranging from $2,010 to
$3,764, with an average of $3,081, according to Blue Cross Blue Shield of
North Carolina."
http://www.costhelper.com/cost/health/colonoscopy.html
You overstated it by a factor of about three.

Quoted by the hospital where my GE works. And 3K is just so reasonable for
a cancer screen. At that price they'll be lining up out the door.

Paul

[CigarBaron]

"
Quoted by the hospital where my GE works.  And 3K is just so reasonable for
a cancer screen.  At that price they'll be lining up out the door.
Paul- Hide quoted text -

In my neck of the woods they truly do line up for the colonoscopy.
However the $15 fecal occult blood screening cards (in low risk
populations) have the same 5 year survivals for colon cancer.

CigarBaron

[CigarBaron]

That's the big thing.  I want a colonoscopy for cancer screening, as well as
to see how the old colon is holding up after its crisis.  Uninsured cost at
the hospital is $10,000.00.  That is for a simple room, not a surgical
theater, for 1 hour plus 1 attending nurse and 1 attending technician.
Doctor fees is 800.00
You can see the problem.
Paul

Paul, those numbers are way too high. Most colonoscopies are handled
as an outpatient at the gastroenterologist's center. Bill for
everything should run about $3000 on the upper end. My GI charged me
$2100 soup to nuts (ass to nuts?)

Of course, under the Schneiderman construct if you're low risk, i.e.,
no family history of colon cancer and no symptoms, you'd get the fecal
occult blood testing cards ($15/test) as opposed to $3000 for the
colonoscopy. Both have identical 5 year survival rates (in low risk
populations.) A whole lot of money would be saved. Of course, for
myself, although I'm low risk for colon cancer, I chose to screen with
colonoscopy at age 50 (I'm 55.) So in the Schneiderman construct, I'd
have to pick up the difference between colonoscopy ($3000) and fecal
occult card testing ($15) and I'd have to cough up the $2985
difference.

CigarBaron

[CigarBaron]

Post by MLF
Marc, I'm sure this sounds like a good plan to you, unless you or your wife
or child is handed the "Chevy" plan because you can't pay more. Then the
inequity would be more than apparent.
Michael
========================================================

Sorry Michael, this isn't communist Russia...there will always be
inequities for those who can afford more. But if clinical outcomes
are the same, so what? BTW, those in power in Russia still get more
than the general popoulation as well.

My system would work and if you can afford to pay more you will for
more expensive treatments that have the same clinical outcomes. Or
your better insurance will. The bottom feeders will have to put up
with less treatment with identical outcomes.

Medications are a case in point. You want Lipitor? Get primo
insurance to cover the name brand as there is no generic available Or
"suffer" with a generic that has similar outcomes, i.e., Pravastatin,
Simvastatin, etc. Inequity? Not in my mind. If you pay for the
better insurance you get more options with no changes in outcomes. We
can figure this out for all surgeries, treatments, cancer treatments,
etc.

CigarBaron

[MLF]

"CigarBaron" <***@gmail.com> wrote
Sorry Michael, this isn't communist Russia...there will always be
inequities for those who can afford more. But if clinical outcomes
are the same, so what?

...Inequity? Not in my mind. If you pay for the

better insurance you get more options with no changes in outcomes. We
can figure this out for all surgeries, treatments, cancer treatments,
etc.


I see your point, which seems to be "if the clinical outcomes are the same".
I agree.

But is there a less expensive treatment for every ailment? For instance, if
I complain of numerous migraine headaches there are a myriad of causes. The
"cadillac" treatment would involve in-depth testing to determine the cause
and course of treatment. The "chevy" plan might be a handful of aspirins and
send you on your way. Would expense be the only determining factor for the
amount of care you are given? What do you think?

Michael
New Orleans, Louisiana USA ***@REMOVEsprynet.com
========================================================

[Miss Elaine Eos]

Post by CigarBaron
Sorry Michael, this isn't communist Russia...there will always be
inequities for those who can afford more. But if clinical outcomes
are the same, so what?

...Inequity? Not in my mind. If you pay for the

better insurance you get more options with no changes in outcomes. We
can figure this out for all surgeries, treatments, cancer treatments,
etc.
I see your point, which seems to be "if the clinical outcomes are the same".
I agree.
But is there a less expensive treatment for every ailment?

If it were true for every ailment save one, would that be a flaw? How
about 2? What's the magic number?

Post by CigarBaron
For instance, if
I complain of numerous migraine headaches there are a myriad of causes. The
"cadillac" treatment would involve in-depth testing to determine the cause
and course of treatment. The "chevy" plan might be a handful of aspirins and
send you on your way.

For any plan either of us devise, the other guy can come up with some
idiotic way to implement it that makes it sounds stupid.

Is that a flaw in the plan...?

Post by CigarBaron
Would expense be the only determining factor for the
amount of care you are given? What do you think?

Should expense be considered at all when determining the amount of care
one is given? What do you think?

[CigarBaron]

Post by MLF
"
But is there a less expensive treatment for every ailment? For instance, if
I complain of numerous migraine headaches there are a myriad of causes. The
"cadillac" treatment would involve in-depth testing to determine the cause
and course of treatment. The "chevy" plan might be a handful of aspirins and
send you on your way. Would expense be the only determining factor for the
amount of care you are given? What do you think?
Michael
========================================================

Michael, the money lost on migrain patients is realized on the workups
for the disease not the medicine treatment.

For instance, when a patient presents with new onset migraine
headaches about 90% of the time I'll order labs and a brain MRI as
part of the workup. One would argue that an MRI for migraine work ups
are unnecessary unless there are persistent nuerological deficits or
focal seizure activity. We'd save a whole lot of money in the work
ups if we didn't order the brain MRI (about $2000/test.)

The medicines aren't where the money is lost...it's lost on work ups
for the disease, i.e. brain MRIs and labs. So, 90% of the MRIs would
be cut out if you follow the algorithm for migraine headache workup.
And, yes there would be some brain cancers missed and some patients
would die. That's what happens when you restrict things to save
money. We now look at cost/benefit on all testing, i.e., it'll cost
$500,000 to find the one brain cancer in the migraine work up. So
it's more cost appropriate to lose one patient to brain cancer than
spend all that money finding it. Cold, callous? Hey, I don't make
the rules and our USoA population wouldn't stand for that. They'd
call their lawyers before they'd call their physicians. That's why
physicians desperately need tort reform protection, something Obama
feels he just cannot do for physicians (as he stated yesterday to the
AMA.)

CigarBaron

[MLF]

...So

it's more cost appropriate to lose one patient to brain cancer than
spend all that money finding it. Cold, callous? Hey, I don't make
the rules and our USoA population wouldn't stand for that. They'd
call their lawyers before they'd call their physicians. That's why
physicians desperately need tort reform protection, something Obama
feels he just cannot do for physicians (as he stated yesterday to the
AMA.)


"Tort reform" has its place. But in the 1970s it became the mechanism for
guilty persons to evade responsibility and enable lawyers to steal money
from persons who were not genuinely culpable. It has become one of the most
reviled and shameful tenents of our legal system.

The solution to the medical legal responsibility problem may lay not in
evading responsibility, but rather in more clear legal guidelines and better
judges. I don't want the AMA making laws, but neither do I want every
unhappy hangnail patient raking some innocent doctor over the coals. As as
the very important decisions doctors make are in line with established legal
medical precedents they should never be punished for them - that's where the
judges come in. And Congress has a role too. They need to establish a clear
legal framework to protect physicians from legal pillory - and punish those
lawyers and patients who instigate it.

I think that there's a place for "loser pays" in civil trials.
Unfortunately, that means that poor victims will never see redress from a
rich and powerful defendant, so perhaps some middle road can be found. But
despite the fact that very, very, VERY few medical suits are successful, the
cost and damage to the physician is still done.

My point is I feel for you and others in the medical community. And I
believe that you need protection from legal second guessing. I wish I had
more of the answers. But "tort reform" is a big issue, and I am not in favor
of situational immunity for physicians or any other group. We all make
mistakes, and we have to pay the price when we do. But better judges and
laws can prevent greed and emotions from ruining a doctor's reputation.

Michael
New Orleans, Louisiana USA ***@REMOVEsprynet.com
========================================================

[Paul M. Cook]

Post by MLF
Marc, I'm sure this sounds like a good plan to you, unless you or your wife
or child is handed the "Chevy" plan because you can't pay more. Then the
inequity would be more than apparent.
Michael
========================================================

Sorry Michael, this isn't communist Russia...there will always be
inequities for those who can afford more. But if clinical outcomes
are the same, so what? BTW, those in power in Russia still get more
than the general popoulation as well.

My system would work and if you can afford to pay more you will for
more expensive treatments that have the same clinical outcomes. Or
your better insurance will. The bottom feeders will have to put up
with less treatment with identical outcomes.


Geez man, these are human beings who have no insurance. You make them sound
like the scum of the earth.


Medications are a case in point. You want Lipitor? Get primo
insurance to cover the name brand as there is no generic available Or
"suffer" with a generic that has similar outcomes, i.e., Pravastatin,
Simvastatin, etc. Inequity? Not in my mind. If you pay for the
better insurance you get more options with no changes in outcomes. We
can figure this out for all surgeries, treatments, cancer treatments,
etc.


Or finally start employing proven other treatments such as osteopathic
medicine which are way cheaper and don't destroy your liver.

Paul

[CigarBaron]

Post by Paul M. Cook
Or finally start employing proven other treatments such as osteopathic
medicine which are way cheaper and don't destroy your liver.
Paul

Osteopathic medicine has nothing to do with medical cholesterol
management. Osteopathic medicine just adds manipulation therapy (of
which 90% of osteopathic physicians opt not to do anymore) to other
standard medical treatments.

If you find an osteopath performing manipulation therapy to lower
cholesterol he/she/it is performing quackery.

CigarBaron

[MLF]

Post by CigarBaron
If you find an osteopath performing manipulation therapy to lower

cholesterol he/she/it is performing quackery.


I see no reason to bring animal husbandry into this discussion. Please stay
on topic.


Michael
New Orleans, Louisiana USA ***@REMOVEsprynet.com
========================================================

[Miss Elaine Eos]

In article

Post by CigarBaron

Post by Miss Elaine Eos
So, what would "universal coverage" look like, to you?

A tiered coverage system along with a tiered payment system depending
upon outcomes. For instance, if you have a basic government plan and
you have prostate cancer you get surgery. You want seed implants plus
external radiation, you fork over $60,000 personally. You have better
insurance you get the bells and whistles. All in all, both treatments
have the same outcomes, just one less invasive and more expensive.
You think that's discrimination? The rich get "better" treatments?
Maybe, but outcomes are the same. You have more money, you get the
cadillac, they get the Chevy. Both cars drive. The way it works now,
the basic government plans cover the more expensive treatments. This
should stop.
We need to do this for every treatment: cost/outcomes data. Then,
you have a Cadiallac plan that covers? Good. You're on the
government dole and you want the misperceived better treatment? You
get the money and pay.
It will work and we'll save a whole mess of money.

Just to make sure I'm hearing you correctly, it sounds as if the change
you want to make is to have a system very similar to now, except that
the government-provided program pays for less treatment.

Is that right?

(No, I'm not being facetious -- I'm just reading what you wrote and
reporting-back what I got out of it. I apologize if I've grossly
misunderstood you.)

---

If I understand you correctly, is there any reason that I couldn't keep
my current insurance? Given the reduced costs, I can't imagine why I
would have to pay more taxes to cover it. What's the "Universal" part
of your proposed plan?

[Paul M. Cook]

"
We aren't talking about delivery. We are talking about access and
availability. No disussion I know of changes delivery one iota. Not a bit.
It changes how it gets PAID FOR. Never having paid a dime for care you do
not know what it is like. >
Paul

I've paid over $1000 in the past year for expenses not covered by my
plan for my family and myself. Of course, I treat myself, i.e. order
my own blood and tests. But my insurance doesn't cover all and the
hospital system that owns me still charges me by balance. I pay for
health care and incidentals as well.


Paul, I didn't bring the subject up. But when someone implies the
system is broken, they don't know the system. BTW, I'll pull rank
here, I am going to assume, albeit incorrectly possibly, that you
don't and I do know the system. You've been burned by some bad
experiences, I'm sorry. You're certainly not alone. But with 99% of
medical delivery going on and doing well, although we're not batting
1000, we're doing OK.


---

I just cannot get past this. Medical delivery is not medical insurance.
Meical insurance is broken. Menbdical delivery is actully pretty good.
WWHy is iot you see theese as the samer thing? If it's anything, my 2
doctors do as well. It is becuase they are completely selerated from the
paying side of the equation and have no knowledge of it.

---

Now, there still is no problem in general with access to health
care...just payment. With 60% of personal bankrupsies claiming health
payments are a significant part, I do believe we have a problem than
can be helped by universal coverage (not socialization.)

---

That's the point, Marc. I just don't know why you include yourself (as a
group) into the mix. All I hears is how reform gets you paid faster. I've
never heard anything about changing the way doctors deliver care. Nothing.
And in fact a WHO report puts the US high on the list for delivery, very low
on the list for access.

Paul

[CigarBaron]

I just cannot get past this.  Medical delivery is not medical insurance.
Meical insurance is broken.  Menbdical delivery is actully pretty good.
Paul

I agree Paul. Unfortunately you've left out the biggest broken piece
of the puzzle: our USoA public. They want everything, today, for
free, anytime they want. They will not stand for any stratified
approach to delivery as is seen in a socialized system. And, the
lawyers are there sueing over everything despite the lack of fulfilled
criteria for medical malpractice. And both sides get paid...there's
no legal incentive to restrict lawsuits in our system which is not
based up loser pays. Physicians need tort reform desperately Paul.

CigarBaron

[Buck Turgidson]

Post by Tony
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will
probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble
whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in
1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling &
Start Rocking the Boat.
Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the
much-circulated "open letter." "I did write the 'you scare me' letter.
I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it.
However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had
over 500,000 hits.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp

You forgot the part about Obama being a gay Kenyan Muslim baby-eater.

[Miss Elaine Eos]

Post by Buck Turgidson
You forgot the part about Obama being a gay Kenyan Muslim baby-eater.

Obama is gay...?!

;)

[Tom S.]

Post by Miss Elaine Eos

Post by Buck Turgidson
You forgot the part about Obama being a gay Kenyan Muslim baby-eater.

Obama is gay...?!
;)

He's pretty, and witty, and gayyyyyyy!

[Mickey]

Post by Buck Turgidson

Post by Tony
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will
probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble
whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in
1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling &
Start Rocking the Boat.
Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the
much-circulated "open letter." "I did write the 'you scare me' letter.
I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it.
However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had
over 500,000 hits.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp

You forgot the part about Obama being a gay Kenyan Muslim baby-eater.

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #5

[mary a.]

Post by Buck Turgidson

Post by Tony
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will
probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble
whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in
1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling &
Start Rocking the Boat.
Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the
much-circulated "open letter." "I did write the 'you scare me' letter.
I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it.
However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had
over 500,000 hits.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp

You forgot the part about Obama being a gay Kenyan Muslim baby-eater.

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #5- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Well Duh!

[Ray]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:21:21 -0400, Buck Turgidson

Post by Buck Turgidson

Post by Tony
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will
probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble
whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in
1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling &
Start Rocking the Boat.
Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the
much-circulated "open letter." "I did write the 'you scare me' letter.
I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it.
However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had
over 500,000 hits.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp

You forgot the part about Obama being a gay Kenyan Muslim baby-eater.

Gay? Possibly. Who cares?
Kenyan? Undoubtedly. Well, half at least.
Muslim? Probably, at least in his youth.

I don't think anyone has accused him of eating babies. Except you,
that is.

[Steve A]

Post by Tony
By: Lou Pritchett

A paranoid nut case with opinions. Nothing new.