Re: OT: very
John C TX
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:15:00 -0700 (PDT), John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> >I realize that many of you are not remotely conservative and see an
> >agenda when they watch Fox. Now look at this article in the Boston
> >Globe and you will see that fallacies are not restricted to one side
> >of the other. It also a good example of why this country is so
> >polarized.
>
> >I have followed this wind farm relatively closely. I am not in energy
> >and I live far away but I found this issue intriguing. When I was
> >vacationing up there regularly it seemed odd that a state that
> >proclaims itself as progressive would be against something that is
> >green. The wind farm falls neatly into the grid --a big issue for
> >wind generation, would provide jobs, and is renewable. As I looked the
> >wind farm had state wide support but was being fought by the elite on
> >Cape Cod.
>
> >The argument made by those against it would start off about killing
> >birds, destroying views, hurting fish (give me a break) , blah, blah,
> >blah. Then you have some, many who would generally vote GOP, saying
> >how the govt shouldn't subsidize renewables and how lefties in the
> >Cape who fought it didn't see their obvious hypocrisy is beyond me.
>
> >Anyway Koch mentioned in the article is a conservative but is not why
> >he is against this wind farm. He is against it for the same reason
> >Kennedy was against it. He is rich & he doesn't want a 1/2" blip on
> >his horizon on clear days. He is rich and he is not used to be told
> >no. His brother's (also very conservative /Libertarian) have renewable
> >groups in their company-- biggest private company in the world. He
> >hates them why didn't they make that link? That he was against it to
> >hurt the brothers he sued.
>
> >The Globe took an issue that had support across the country from both
> >sides of the aisle and now after it is approved they are trying to
> >turn it into a GOP bogeyman. No wonder people can't talk. This is
> >bad journalism & poisons public discourse.
>
> >If you get bored.
>
> >Wind farm foe gave $100,000 to aid GOP
>
> >By Michael Rezendes, Globe Staff | October 26, 2010
>
> >A month ago, as the battle over a proposed wind farm in Nantucket
> >Sound was being heard by state regulators, William I. Koch, the fossil
> >fuel magnate and Cape Cod summer resident, donated $100,000 to the
> >Republican Governors Association.
>
> >Koch, a longtime opponent of Cape Wind and cochairman of the Alliance
> >to Protect Nantucket Sound, made the donation in part to support
> >Republican Charles D. Baker, another Cape Wind opponent, in the race
> >for governor.
>
> >“It’s no secret we oppose Cape Wind,’’ said Brad Goldstein, a
> >spokesman for Koch at the Oxbow Group, the $4 billion fossil fuel
> >conglomerate that Koch runs from his Florida home.
>
> >Baker has called the proposal a “sweetheart deal’’ among state
> >officials, Cape Wind, and electricity provider National Grid. He has
> >been aided in his campaign by more than $5 million in spending by the
> >governors association.
>
> >Cape Wind, for its part, has financially supported Governor Deval
> >Patrick, a Democrat and avid supporter of the proposal. Two officials
> >have made numerous direct contributions to the governor and his
> >running mate, Lieutenant Governor Timothy P. Murray. They have not,
> >however, made any recent contributions to the Democratic Governors
> >Association, which has provided more than $3 million for ads produced
> >by an outside group supporting Patrick.
>
> >Cape Wind president James S. Gordon has given a total of $2,500 to
> >Patrick since 2005 and another $1,000 to Murray, according to campaign
> >finance records. He has also given $10,500 to the Democratic State
> >Committee, which is helping Patrick in his run for governor.
>
> >In addition, Mitchell H. Jacobs, Gordon’s partner at Energy Management
> >Inc., Cape Wind’s developer, has given $1,500 to Patrick, $1,000 to
> >Murray, and another $2,000 to the Democratic State Committee. He also
> >donated $250 to Baker this year.
>
> >Still, Mark Rodgers, a spokesman for Cape Wind, said Koch’s six-figure
> >donation to the Republican Governors Association is evidence that his
> >financial interest in fossil fuels is driving his fight against the
> >wind energy proposal. “The public has a right to know that oil and
> >coal money has been fueling the opposition’s misinformation campaign
> >against an offshore wind farm,’’ Rodgers said.
>
> >But Goldstein said Koch’s opposition has nothing to do with his
> >business interests. Instead, he said, it is based on Koch’s status as
> >a summer homeowner in Osterville, his passion for sailing — Koch won
> >the 1992 America’s Cup race — and his belief that the proposal is bad
> >for ratepayers.
>
> >“Bill thinks it’s a boondoggle for Jim Gordon,’’ Goldstein said. “He
> >wants to see the sound preserved, and he definitely has some homeowner
> >interest.’’
>
> >In addition, Goldstein said Koch’s donation to the association was
> >also meant to help Republican gubernatorial candidates across the
> >country — including incumbent Rick Perry in Texas, and Meg Whitman in
> >California, where Oxbow has significant business interests. Oxbow has
> >more than 300 employees working at three facilities in Texas, for
> >example. It conducts no operations in New England.
>
> >The battle over Cape Wind, potentially the nation’s first offshore
> >wind farm, has raged for much of the last decade, pitting proponents
> >of renewable energy against preservationists and some prominent Cape
> >Cod homeowners, including Koch and the late Edward M. Kennedy.
>
> >The Department of Public Utilities held public hearings on the
> >proposal in September and is expected to reach a decision by mid-
> >November. If the agency approves the deal, which is projected to raise
> >customers’ monthly electricity rates by about 2 percent, opponents
> >will be able to appeal to the state’s Supreme Judicial Court.
>
> >In the meantime, both sides have pushed their respective causes in the
> >political arena, making donations designed to influence the hotly
> >contested race for governor and collectively spending about $4 million
> >to lobby members of Congress.
>
> >Since the early 2000s, the Alliance and Cape Wind have each spent
> >about $1.5 million dollars on their lobbying efforts. In addition,
> >Oxbow, which is privately held, paid $1 million to a lobbying firm
> >that worked against the Cape Wind proposal from 2005 to 2007, when
> >Kennedy was seeking to kill it.
>
> >Federal records show that much of Oxbow’s $1 million was spent to
> >directly influence the outcome of the wind farm debate. But they also
> >show that the lobbying firm, US Strategies, worked on other issues,
> >such as tax credits and other matters that Goldstein said might have
> >included Oxbow’s international shipping interests.
>
> >Oxbow is a collection of more than two dozen companies with 15
> >locations across the United States and two dozen more spread out over
> >five continents, according to Oxbow’s website. Its primary businesses
> >are mining and the sale of coal, natural gas, and petroleum. It is
> >also the world’s largest distributor of petroleum coke, a solid fuel
> >that is a byproduct of the oil refining process.
>
> >Oxbow is unrelated to Koch Industries, the Wichita-based energy
> >conglomerate owned by Koch’s two brothers, Charles and David, both of
> >whom are prodigious funders of libertarian causes. Oxbow’s William
> >Koch waged a bitter legal battle against his brothers during the 1980s
> >and 1990s, contending he was cheated when he sold his stake in their
> >company.
>
> >The Cape Wind proposal — which calls for 130 turbines, each 440 feet
> >high, to be built over 24 square miles in Nantucket Sound — has also
> >become an issue in the race between Attorney General Martha Coakley, a
> >Democrat, and her Republican challenger, James P. McKenna.
>
> >In August, Coakley garnered headlines when she urged the Department of
> >Public Utilities to approve an agreement between Cape Wind and
> >National Grid, after she negotiated a 10 percent reduction in the
> >price of power from the turbines.
>
> >McKenna, for his part, has urged the agency to reject the deal, saying
> >it will be too costly for ratepayers. He has criticized Coakley for
> >accepting $4,800 in campaign contributions from Cape Wind’s Gordon
> >during her unsuccessful campaign to fill Kennedy’s US Senate seat.
>
> >“Jim Gordon stands to personally profit greatly from Coakley’s
> >continued political power,’’ McKenna said in a statement.
>
> >But campaign records show that Gordon hedged his bets, giving $4,800,
> >the combined legal maximum in the primary and general elections, to
> >both Coakley and US Representative Michael E. Capuano, another
> >candidate in the Democratic primary.
>
> >Jacobs, Gordon’s business partner, gave $1,000 to Coakley.
>
> >Brian C. Mooney off the Globe staff contributed to this report.
> >Michael Rezendes can be reached at rezen...@globe.com.
> >© Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
>
> My problem with FoxNews, is that they call themselves a news organization,
> which they're not. They're basically the Media/Propaganda arm of the GOP.
> If they just presented stories with a right-wing slant, that would be cool... but they too
> often spew outright, proven lies, to rile their base. Just for one story, the Black
> Panther intimidation crap, which never happened.
CNN, Fox MSNBC have found opinions & commentaries rate higher than
news. People would rather throw their shoe in anger at the TV. The
left shoe & the right rather than hear details & both sides of an
issue.
Fox filled a void because many on the right tired of what they
perceived as a bias from the left. The result is that both "sides"
are now even more biased. Josef Goebbels would be proud.
> As for this story, the Koch brothers have recently gotten a lot of attention (finally),
> because of their funding/founding of the *tea party...* and other political/media stuff.
The Koch brothers aren't linked to this Koch. My point is the headline
and the early theme GOP is anti-wind. Why not this as a headline"
"Koch blocked his brother's renewable efforts"
It would be as fallacious as the headline they chose. The opposition
was rich guys with vacation homes. Some are Dems & some are GOPers.
As for the Tea Partiers & Koch, it is the same as Soros. Everyone
hates the other guy's money. The media stirs it up but they really
don't want it to end. BTW The New Yorker piece on the Kochs could be
used in rhetoric class as could this Globe piece.
I am consistent. These advocacy groups and PACs are poison. They
should be made illegal .Let people give away to the candidates-- or
amend the Constitution so Buckley v Valeo is moot- just tell me who
is giving to whom.
> So, more than anything, I think part of this is just a continuation of that storyline.
> Not sure about the left-wing hypocrisy in this piece, as it brings up the Dems who were
> being paid off, and mentioned Kennedy as an opponent. Or maybe I missed your point...
> where you're seeing the hypocrisy?
The headline certainly tried to link that he gave money to the GOP &
his opposition to the Wind Farm. The Kennedy's are buried deep in the
article. It was certainly an attempt to link the GOP as anti-wind.
This wasn't left vs. right but rich vs.the right thing.
I only used the word hypocrisy to the Dems who were fought the farm.
They are green unless the own a beach house.
papa.carl44
"John C TX" <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:57a00a8a-3c5e-4d8a...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
________________________________________________________
That's not exactly accurate. Wind does not necessarily mean environmentally
friendly if it adversely affects other issues...and yes, fish can be a very
important part of an ecosystem, especially in an area that has commerical
fishing. WHERE wind production is put is an important issue. I'm not
saying that some very rich so called liberals are not hypocrits, I suspect
they are just that in many ways. Why someone opposes the wind farm is the
key issue here...not the mere fact they oppose it. BTW...Kennedy is dead,
thought maybe you missed that one. I think a lot of his politics are gone
too. You simply can not deny that there is far more money on the right than
on the so-called left. How many left wing corporations are there? I'd need
to learn a lot more about this and all of the reasons why and IF any are
serious or just more BS.....I am not backing the Dems here...they have
screwed up miserably. The mere fact that Republicans are in a position to
take over Congress flat out tells us how badly the Dems have dealt with
things. Still....Fox is bizarre and has absolutely no sense of integrity.
The other gangs are only slightly better, after all, MSNBC has that neocon
buffoon Joe and Pat on in the early hours. :-)
You are very correct though...none of this is about reporting the news...it
is all pandering and positioning....this next war is going to be a class war
and the media is going to see to it. I don't have much faith in either
party. To me...the Dems are slightly less dangerous, that's all.
Michael
fox news is the same thing that the leftist media outlets are... they
are "affirmation" programs and not information programs. the
household left vs. right issues are a smoke screen. having one over
the other in high office wont fix any of the real problems. I'm
amazed that most people don't understand that. they continue to throw
themselves into the banal democrat vs. republican mud wrestling match
as if the winner comes out of it with solutions much less a real
understanding of the problem.
John C TX
> MSNBC during the day, doesn't have much of a lean left... it's at night when it goes
> progressive. And I imagine that will be short-lived, with Comcast buying NBC (all their
> top execs are ex-Fox execs).
>
>
>
> >Fox filled a void because many on the right tired of what they
> >perceived as a bias from the left. The result is that both "sides"
> >are now even more biased. Josef Goebbels would be proud.
>
> candidates (Palin, Huckabee, etc), you don't see that anywhere else. And Murdoch openly
> contributes to the GOP.
You can find them on CNN & MSNBC but that is fair comment if Fox is
doing it more frequently. I will have to look --s*** now I have to
watch it. :)
> I think Goebbels would be proud... but that too, I see a distinction. If you follow the
> broad news in the US Media, they tend to follow the GOP talking points. And because the
> GOP drums the *left-wing* media point, they tend to try to show their *balance,* by going
> harder after Dems.
> Watch all Sunday talk shows, and the questions are always through a GOP prism. The GOP is
> great at drumming their propaganda, over & over & over... and the Media follows. The Dems
> tend to be all over the place, and haven't a clue how to get out their message. Hence,
> more people now believe Obama a Muslim, etc. And for instance, in polling, a majority is
> against the healthcare legislation, but if you ask them individually, about what it
> contains, they like it.
There are huge problems with that bill. Let me ask the questions.
:)
> But of course, we'll disagree on this ;)
We do.
I think they have a tendency to play to those "out of power" except on
certain issues. They swing too far in that they take a Pollyanna view
of the world all the way to a doom and gloom. There is a reason why
textbook journalism, not that it was always followed, tried to to
train reporters
>
>
>
> >> As for this story, the Koch brothers have recently gotten a lot of attention (finally),
> >> because of their funding/founding of the *tea party...* and other political/media stuff.
>
> >The Koch brothers aren't linked to this Koch. My point is the headline
> >and the early theme GOP is anti-wind. Why not this as a headline"
>
> Headlines tend to be all over the place, just to get people to start reading a story.
> I hate it. I'll see a headline, start reading, and the point of the article is something
> else. If they cover all sides, I tend to ignore the headline spin... it's like any
> advertisement... BS ;)
buRf, it isn't just the headline and why are they sensational inside
the paper? There are idiots who just read the headline then of those
who get into the article how many make it past the 1st 3 paragraphs?
They aren't columnists & for all our sake they must get back to
reporting. This story was biased and they had a purpose.
>
>
>
> >"Koch blocked his brother's renewable efforts"
>
> >It would be as fallacious as the headline they chose. The opposition
> >was rich guys with vacation homes. Some are Dems & some are GOPers.
>
> >As for the Tea Partiers & Koch, it is the same as Soros. Everyone
> >hates the other guy's money. The media stirs it up but they really
> >don't want it to end. BTW The New Yorker piece on the Kochs could be
> >used in rhetoric class as could this Globe piece.
>
> >I am consistent. These advocacy groups and PACs are poison. They
> >should be made illegal .Let people give away to the candidates-- or
> >amend the Constitution so Buckley v Valeo is moot- just tell me who
> >is giving to whom.
>
> Soros is the sleight of hand on the Right, because he's the only big money guy... so they
> can say, *see, the Dems have them too.*
buRf, but that is the problem. His money is just as corrupting. Yes,
the GOP has access to more people with money but with hard $ limits to
the candidate and PACs it is limiting. If you know any successful
plaintiffs lawyer Google his name & see how much he gave in the last
cycle. It can't be about the other guy's money. Just the money.
> On the right, you have 10s of billionaires doing the funding.
> It's just like with Citizens United... *the Unions can give money now too,* as if the
> shrinking unions can possible compete with multi-national corporations. And everyone
> knows where union money comes from... its members. Not so with the corporations, 527s,
> etc.
Except union members don't have a choice. Here is my big worry as
conservative and not as GOPer.
If you read their writings many of the founding fathers who were
largely a bunch of rich Wasps feared the raiding of the Treasury by
the masses. As a HS & college student it struck me as elitist.
Unfortunately under every Congress since Watergate they hand out
money we have to print but I digress.
I agree, unions are dying in the trade & manufacturing sectors, but
they are growing at all levels of govt and health care-- a big part of
health care reform. So now we have candidates beholden to our
employees. That was the case for years with teachers and now it is
spreading to all govt workers. Look at IL & CA. The pols can't even
begin to touch their problems for fear of getting tossed out.
> But, I agree with you... all these organizations/people/corporations have destroyed
> everything. I actually wish the *tea party* was a real grass-roots thing, even if it was
> right-wing. Always good to see the People become active. Unfortunately, it's not.
>
>
>
> >> So, more than anything, I think part of this is just a continuation of that storyline.
> >> Not sure about the left-wing hypocrisy in this piece, as it brings up the Dems who were
> >> being paid off, and mentioned Kennedy as an opponent. Or maybe I missed your point...
> >> where you're seeing the hypocrisy?
>
> >The headline certainly tried to link that he gave money to the GOP &
> >his opposition to the Wind Farm. The Kennedy's are buried deep in the
> >article. It was certainly an attempt to link the GOP as anti-wind.
> >This wasn't left vs. right but rich vs.the right thing.
>
> >I only used the word hypocrisy to the Dems who were fought the farm.
> >They are green unless the own a beach house.
>
> I'd say it was these Dems. As I always say, the Dems are all over the place.
> Left-wing, center, right-wing, although after the election, I imagine a bunch of
> right-wing Dems will be booted out. Which will, of course, make the divide between
> parties larger.
> We be f*cked ;)
I hope not.
John C TX
wrote:
> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:57a00a8a-3c5e-4d8a...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
So are you defending Koch as well?
Papa, I agree with you that wind farms siting should be discussed and
approved on land. A 1/2 inch blip on teh horizon is BS. As for the
fish the environmentally sound policy would be to end commercial
fishing but that is never discussed. They didn't talk about it hurting
the fish they talked about hurting the fishing industry much of which
would not even e affected. In the area they are talking about limits
were imposed to reduce over fishing.
:)
> BTW...Kennedy is dead,
> thought maybe you missed that one.
Well they pronounced him dead. His brain shut down years ago.
Kennedy was mentioned, by the writer, because he was a very visible &
powerful opponent.
>I think a lot of his politics are gone
> too. You simply can not deny that there is far more money on the right than
> on the so-called left. How many left wing corporations are there?
Silcon Valley, but the reality is money generally doesn't care. They
buy both sides.
It has been some time since I looked at it but 6/7 of the top ten PACs
were union.
> I'd need
> to learn a lot more about this and all of the reasons why and IF any are
> serious or just more BS.....
After 10+ years it is a done deal. Fitting wind into the grid along
with the power lines can be the most expensive part of wind
generation. This was a nobrainer due too the phenomenal population
growth in the Cape. Everyone wanted it except those with a view and
some boaters.
>I am not backing the Dems here...they have
> screwed up miserably. The mere fact that Republicans are in a position to
> take over Congress flat out tells us how badly the Dems have dealt with
> things. Still....Fox is bizarre and has absolutely no sense of integrity.
> The other gangs are only slightly better, after all, MSNBC has that neocon
> buffoon Joe and Pat on in the early hours. :-)
Fox has Juan Williams.
:)
>
> You are very correct though...none of this is about reporting the news...it
> is all pandering and positioning....this next war is going to be a class war
> and the media is going to see to it. I don't have much faith in either
> party. To me...the Dems are slightly less dangerous, that's all.
Obviously we disagree on that one.
papa.carl44
We do.
I hope not.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
John, What are the problems with the healthcare bill besides the ones
created in an attempt to placate the Republicans before they even
negotiated? I'm serious, I would like you opinion.
JetsLife
As was said in the greatest Vietnam film ever PLATOON (paraphrasing):
The rich are always screwing over the poor. Always has been always
will be.
I know this issue (separate from John's original post) is about a wind
farm and not the poor, but it might as well about the same thing. Rich
Cape Cod assholes screwing over the environment so it doesn't hurt
their view. Fucking cocksuckers.
John C TX
John C TX
wrote:
> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:87eb159b-4959-46ef...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
There are few very bad parts of the plan. To do it justice I want to
answer with some thought.
You will be surprised not all my bitching is about the "liberal"side
of the bill. The process was flawed but Democrats had to have
something. I am not be posting again for a few days.
If Boehner gets in the GOP & the Dem voters should hold his feet to
the fire on changing the House process.
papa.carl44
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
John, This is the exact same response every single conservative and Tea
Party candidate gives...."I need to think about it, and I'll get back to
you." Seems to me if this thing were so horrendous, and absolutely needed
to be repealed and was the focal point of almost an entire election process
you guys would have a whole list of things ready to spout off. Bottom line,
is it better than what was in place prior? The answer is YES.
papa.carl44
"buRford" <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
news:7v5kc6hfhmto5n7mm...@4ax.com...
>>> > >> >won
>>> > >> >the 1992 America's Cup race - and his belief that the proposal is
>>> > >> >bad
>>> > >> >for ratepayers.
>>>
>>> > >> >"Bill thinks it's a boondoggle for Jim Gordon,'' Goldstein said.
>>> > >> >"He
>>> > >> >wants to see the sound preserved, and he definitely has some
>>> > >> >homeowner
>>> > >> >interest.''
>>>
>>> > >> >In addition, Goldstein said Koch's donation to the association was
>>> > >> >also meant to help Republican gubernatorial candidates across the
>>> > >> >feet
>>> > >> >high, to be built over 24 square miles in Nantucket Sound - has
> A friend of mine has a relative in New Hampshire, who's now receiving
> cancer treatment
> that she would not have been able to afford, without the healthcare
> bill... her premiums
> would've been unmanageable. They were going to raise her premiums
> thousands of
> dollars/month, if not for the legislation.
> It aint perfect, but it will save lives, and eventually save lots of
> money, and
> aggravation for our friends, relatives... and us.
It certainly is not all I would have hoped for, and does not even begin to
bring us up to the level of the rest of the industrialized world, but it
will save some lives...and conversely, people like me should plan on a
funeral if they repeal it. When the insurance companies have no regs to
guide them, which will most likely be the case if everything is overturned
and what the opposition really wants transplant patients will never get
insurance. It is really hard already. I laugh when I hear the opposition
talk about what great plans are available. This has been a six year plus
fight that never ends. If the Tea Party takes control of these issues we
will enter the dark ages of medicine.
Harlan Lachman
"papa.carl44" <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
> If the Tea Party takes control of these issues we
> will enter the dark ages of medicine.
I don't think the darkness, sorrow, and evil will be limited to medicine
:-(
harlan
John C TX
> >> To me, there's a distinction. Look at the commentators on Fox, many of them are actual
> >> candidates (Palin, Huckabee, etc), you don't see that anywhere else. And Murdoch openly
> >> contributes to the GOP.
>
> >You can find them on CNN & MSNBC but that is fair comment if Fox is
> >doing it more frequently. I will have to look --s*** now I have to
> >watch it. :)
>
> And they're the only network, where their ownership actually gives financial support to a
> political Party... and their head honcho (Ailes) was a Party operative.
> I prefer objectivity, but can deal with a slant left or right.
> When I watch Fox, there's no attention given to actually back up any of their talking
> points. They just repeat them over & over. On MSNBC at night, you have a bunch of
> leftys, but normally, anything they say they actually present real evidence to backup
> their viewpoint. Someone like Rachel Maddow, is a great investigative Journalist, and she
> has a great research staff. So, if someone can get past their right-wing bias, they could
> actually understand where she gets her viewpoint. She just doesn't say something, and
> have guests that just repeat it, she always lays out her case, and leaves it to the viewer
> to draw their own conclusion.
b, at your urging I have tried her 4 x now. If you present a fact
even if it correct and then draw a conclusion that can often be
fallacious argument. She is the master of it. The funny part of it
was she had Michael Moore on who is the master of it.
I even flipped over to Fox which I haven't watched in awhile. There
isn't much difference between the two. I'll trust you that CNN &
MSNBC doesn't have future candidates as commentaries -- personally I
wish Palin would get eaten by a walrus-- if that is the case it is
wrong. I realize I have a bias but please tell me the difference
between Anderson Cooper & company & O'Reilly & company?
> That's kinda why I make that distinction. I wish Fox would actually try to make a case
> for their position, that I could deal with. But it's 24/7 nonstop opinion. And since
> they're right-wing, they have a much larger audience... cable providers offer FoxNews on
> basic cable, whereas on many cable providers, MSNBC is not on basic. And honestly, that's
> a big reason that this Country is growing in ignorance... one side has so much more access
> to the electorate, whether on radio or TV. People aren't getting both sides. When I
> travel out of the NY area, often I can't find anything progressive on the radio... and no
> MSNBC. It's just total Right-Wing spin.
> And with the thuggery growing, with many of the tea-party candidates (just this past week
> there have been 3 scary episodes)... and candidates not speaking to the Media (other than
> Fox... Palin, Joe Miller, O'Donnell, Angle, Rand Paul, etc) ... I'm really concerned
> what's happening here.
> Sorry for the rant, it's just really troubling, and I fear for the America our kids'll be
> getting.
>
>
>
> >> I think Goebbels would be proud... but that too, I see a distinction. If you follow the
> >> broad news in the US Media, they tend to follow the GOP talking points.
I could point out plenty of examples where they are following the
Democrats lead. Perhaps we are both sensitive to what we disagree
with.
>And because the
> >> GOP drums the *left-wing* media point, they tend to try to show their *balance,* by going
> >> harder after Dems.
Obviously, I don't see it that way. I could cite examples where they
don't.
Just count the righties on the NYT's opinion section. Are there two?
> >I think they have a tendency to play to those "out of power" except on
> >certain issues. They swing too far in that they take a Pollyanna view
> >of the world all the way to a doom and gloom. There is a reason why
> >textbook journalism, not that it was always followed, tried to to
> >train reporters
>
> There's so little Journalism left. CNN just presents opinion on both sides, as News.
> Fox is Fox. At least MSNBC has a few Journalists that still report, like Andrea Mitchell,
> Richard Engel, and a few others.
> The Brits have it right, they call their *anchors* "Presenters."
Maybe I need to start watching BBC America. MY IRA grandfather would
probably forgive me. He was a Collins man not DeValera so he was a
pragmatist.
:)
> >> On the right, you have 10s of billionaires doing the funding.
> >> It's just like with Citizens United... *the Unions can give money now too,* as if the
> >> shrinking unions can possible compete with multi-national corporations. And everyone
> >> knows where union money comes from... its members. Not so with the corporations, 527s,
> >> etc.
>
> >Except union members don't have a choice. Here is my big worry as
> >conservative and not as GOPer.
>
> >If you read their writings many of the founding fathers who were
> >largely a bunch of rich Wasps feared the raiding of the Treasury by
> >the masses. As a HS & college student it struck me as elitist.
> >Unfortunately under every Congress since Watergate they hand out
> >money we have to print but I digress.
>
> >I agree, unions are dying in the trade & manufacturing sectors, but
> >they are growing at all levels of govt and health care-- a big part of
> >health care reform. So now we have candidates beholden to our
> >employees. That was the case for years with teachers and now it is
> >spreading to all govt workers. Look at IL & CA. The pols can't even
> >begin to touch their problems for fear of getting tossed out.
>
> But the union effect, is so small & insignificant, compared to big corporate money.
> And just taking your position at face value (I could challenge it but won't), employees
> are at least working People, rather than large entities. My problem is that the Supreme
> Court just ruled that money is speech.
It is tough, probably to quantify all the money anymore but when
unions are 7 of the biggest Pacs in the last election cycle they
aren't insignificant. I find it difficult to distinguish between good
money & bad. A bribe is a bribe -- look at the preferential tax
treatment health care secured via collective bargaining was given--
and when you don't have any control over whether you are donating that
money it makes the "people" argument to me sound a bit thin.
The Supreme Court is nothing if not consistent. Buckley v Valeo was
under Carter pre- Reagan appointees. That & post-Watergate reforms
did more to hurt us finacially & from a process perspective than
Reagan, Clinton, Acorn, Tea Party etc.
buRf what infuriates me is these idiots we elect get in there &
realize the real money is after you leave. So while they are in there
they make sure no rules are made that will infringe on their next job.
Torricelli-- I mention him because a close friend was big giver & not
because he is a Dem-- walked away with $14 MM in unused campaign
contributions. He can pay himself & "manage" that money forever.
John C TX
> > John, What are the problems with the healthcare bill besides the ones
> > created in an attempt to placate the Republicans before they even
> > negotiated? I'm serious, I would like you opinion.
>
> There are few very bad parts of the plan. To do it justice I want to
> answer with some thought.
>
> You will be surprised not all my bitching is about the "liberal"side
> of the bill. The process was flawed but Democrats had to have
> something. I am not be posting again for a few days.
>
> If Boehner gets in the GOP & the Dem voters should hold his feet to
> the fire on changing the House process.
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> John, This is the exact same response every single conservative and Tea
> Party candidate gives...."I need to think about it, and I'll get back to
> you." Seems to me if this thing were so horrendous, and absolutely needed
> to be repealed and was the focal point of almost an entire election process
> you guys would have a whole list of things ready to spout off. Bottom line,
> is it better than what was in place prior? The answer is YES.
The answer is no. I could explain it t o you but you don't want to
learn. Have you had that problem all your life?
I politely replied that I would get back to you for the exact reason
you didn't think I was dodging you. Now I am because it is waste of
time.
John C TX
> >If Boehner gets in the GOP & the Dem voters should hold his feet to
> >the fire on changing the House process.
> >______________________________________________________________________________________________
commented that bills, not just health care, often have too many things
unrelated to the bill inserted into it and it is a problem to have any
financial discipline until that is corrected.
I hope that he means it. I hope that simple majority can & has the
backbone to do it. It is truly one issue that shoudl be bi-partisan.
>
> >John, This is the exact same response every single conservative and Tea
> >Party candidate gives...."I need to think about it, and I'll get back to
> >you." Seems to me if this thing were so horrendous, and absolutely needed
> >to be repealed and was the focal point of almost an entire election process
> >you guys would have a whole list of things ready to spout off. Bottom line,
> >is it better than what was in place prior? The answer is YES.
>
> While most of it goes into effect in 2014, some of it is already in place.
> A friend of mine has a relative in New Hampshire, who's now receiving cancer treatment
> that she would not have been able to afford, without the healthcare bill... her premiums
> would've been unmanageable. They were going to raise her premiums thousands of
> dollars/month, if not for the legislation.
> It aint perfect, but it will save lives, and eventually save lots of money, and
> aggravation for our friends, relatives... and us.
First of all I am happy for that person/family. If all they did was
create the high risk pools that would have been good.
papa.carl44
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Anderson Cooper ran one of the most salacious reports on organ and tissue
donation ever broadcast...it claimed to present facts even though it
scrawled a disclaimer throughout. The point of it was to prove there is a
black market in organs operating widely in this country. His "experts" were
some of the very well known kooks and crazies who make a living out of this
stuff. They have no credentials, not proof and make bizarre claims that
literally can not be followed up on because of how off the wall they are.
This is an area I DO know a lot about and work in it daily. I was an
international board member of Transplants Recipients International
Organization, I work with two organ procurement organizations, and I am the
president of my own 501c3 that focuses on the transplant community. I would
not for one second put Cooper and Maddow in the same category. CNN is not a
responsible news organization in too many situations and that seems to be
growing these days.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
papa.carl44
"Harlan Lachman" <har...@eeivt.com> wrote in message
news:harlan-C42BB3....@news60.forteinc.com...
I think you are quite right. I am waiting for some of my Jewish friends and
colleagues to figure out the Christian Right only panders to them because
they figure in the "end time" days that they so dearly await, and appear to
want to hasten if only to prove their being right....extremely right. Papa
Carl
papa.carl44
> >If Boehner gets in the GOP & the Dem voters should hold his feet to
> >the fire on changing the House process.
> >______________________________________________________________________________________________
buRf, the process change I was referring to is that Boehner has
commented that bills, not just health care, often have too many things
unrelated to the bill inserted into it and it is a problem to have any
financial discipline until that is corrected.
I hope that he means it. I hope that simple majority can & has the
backbone to do it. It is truly one issue that shoudl be bi-partisan.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
John, Do your research...which party has continually put more pork into a
bill? Then votes against something and is still willing to take credit for
the good it brings their district?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
papa.carl44
______________________________________________________________
You said you would not be back for several days....now you are back and you
accuse me? Come one John, I have corresponded with you, I know you are
better than that. I was a perfectly good answer from me. I hear this
constantly, I asked you to teach me....something YOU brought up, YOU
referenced and you did not have any facts at hand to support your position.
That made me react because it is what we hear most of the time. Is it bad
that a child with a serious medical condition can not be denied insurance?
Is it wrong that people who have abused the ER's across the country will be
asked to buy some affordable insurance and pay their own way? Is it wrong
that for the most part it is being privatized and allowing a much broader
pool of patients for the insurance companies? Is it wrong that someone like
me, in a few years if it does nto get repealed, can purchase insurance even
though I have a transplant? Becuase right now....that can't happen, and the
minute many have their lives saved the insurance company starts working very
hard to get rid of them. I listen to you...I have as a matter of record in
the past and I've admitted when I was wrong or you convinced me of a
different posittion. I'm sorry to see you react this way. YOU brought up
the topic, it was you who claimed so many issues with the bill, I think it
was only natural for me to assume you knew what those issues were.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
John C TX
> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:f4ddadf7-76b7-4f7e...@a36g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Papa, my reply was civil your response was insulting. You are as
guilty of generalization of these Tea Party people you fear.
Like I wouldn't have an opinion on health care reform.
> I hear this
> constantly, I asked you to teach me....something YOU brought up, YOU
> referenced and you did not have any facts at hand to support your position.
> That made me react because it is what we hear most of the time.
I brought up the health care unions being one reason behind Obama's
push into the driving not the a criticism of it. You asked a civil
question & I told you I would get back to you. You accused me once
before of running from you that is why I said I was busy. I replied
this a.m. because I had time.
>Is it bad
> that a child with a serious medical condition can not be denied insurance?
> Is it wrong that people who have abused the ER's across the country will be
> asked to buy some affordable insurance and pay their own way? Is it wrong
> that for the most part it is being privatized and allowing a much broader
> pool of patients for the insurance companies? Is it wrong that someone like
> me, in a few years if it does nto get repealed, can purchase insurance even
> though I have a transplant? Becuase right now....that can't happen, and the
> minute many have their lives saved the insurance company starts working very
> hard to get rid of them. I listen to you...I have as a matter of record in
> the past and I've admitted when I was wrong or you convinced me of a
> different posittion. I'm sorry to see you react this way. YOU brought up
> the topic, it was you who claimed so many issues with the bill, I think it
> was only natural for me to assume you knew what those issues were.
Papa I have written for years in here when this toxic issue has come
up that I favor national health care. I wish we had put it in in the
50's like the UK. If we did however some of our research would not
have happened. My logic is simple. We are already paying for it so we
should give it out.
Your position about transplants, kids, etc. is exactly why this won't
get cleaned up. To do this properly someone has to play gatekeeper
and Americans can't deal with anyone getting denied anything and I am
not saying transplants shouldn't happen. Everyone wants gold plated
medical care but no one wants to stand up to the AMA, pharmacy
companies -- we are the most needlessly medicated country for a
reason, the unions, the hospitals, and especially the Medicare aged
population.
This wasn't reform this was in too many parts of that bill just adding
costs to the taxpayer. It was one more opportunity for both sides of
the aisle to raid the Treasury.
MZ
>
>>>> To me, there's a distinction. Look at the commentators on Fox, many of them are actual
>>>> candidates (Palin, Huckabee, etc), you don't see that anywhere else. And Murdoch openly
>>>> contributes to the GOP.
>>
>>> doing it more frequently. I will have to look --s*** now I have to
>>> watch it. :)
>>
>> There are no active candidates on any other network, that have a similar platform.
>> And they're the only network, where their ownership actually gives financial support to a
>> political Party... and their head honcho (Ailes) was a Party operative.
>> I prefer objectivity, but can deal with a slant left or right.
>> When I watch Fox, there's no attention given to actually back up any of their talking
>> leftys, but normally, anything they say they actually present real evidence to backup
>> their viewpoint. Someone like Rachel Maddow, is a great investigative Journalist, and she
>> has a great research staff. So, if someone can get past their right-wing bias, they could
>> actually understand where she gets her viewpoint. She just doesn't say something, and
>> have guests that just repeat it, she always lays out her case, and leaves it to the viewer
>> to draw their own conclusion.
>
> b, at your urging I have tried her 4 x now. If you present a fact
> even if it correct and then draw a conclusion that can often be
> fallacious argument. She is the master of it. The funny part of it
> was she had Michael Moore on who is the master of it.
>
> I even flipped over to Fox which I haven't watched in awhile. There
> isn't much difference between the two. I'll trust you that CNN&
> MSNBC doesn't have future candidates as commentaries -- personally I
> wish Palin would get eaten by a walrus-- if that is the case it is
> wrong. I realize I have a bias but please tell me the difference
>>> Unfortunately under every Congress since Watergate they hand out
>>> money we have to print but I digress.
>>
>>> they are growing at all levels of govt and health care-- a big part of
>>> health care reform. So now we have candidates beholden to our
>>> employees. That was the case for years with teachers and now it is
>>> begin to touch their problems for fear of getting tossed out.
>>
>> And just taking your position at face value (I could challenge it but won't), employees
>> are at least working People, rather than large entities. My problem is that the Supreme
>> Court just ruled that money is speech.
>
> It is tough, probably to quantify all the money anymore but when
> unions are 7 of the biggest Pacs in the last election cycle they
> aren't insignificant. I find it difficult to distinguish between good
> treatment health care secured via collective bargaining was given--
> and when you don't have any control over whether you are donating that
> money it makes the "people" argument to me sound a bit thin.
>
> The Supreme Court is nothing if not consistent. Buckley v Valeo was
> did more to hurt us finacially& from a process perspective than
> Reagan, Clinton, Acorn, Tea Party etc.
>
> buRf what infuriates me is these idiots we elect get in there&
> realize the real money is after you leave. So while they are in there
> they make sure no rules are made that will infringe on their next job.
> because he is a Dem-- walked away with $14 MM in unused campaign
> contributions. He can pay himself& "manage" that money forever.
Maddow makes too many factual errors for me to take her seriously. She
may be a great journalist and interviewer, but she's just not very
knowledgeable. Not that I watch any of that crap anyway.
papa.carl44
"papa.carl44" <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
news:D_idnYStNrBvdFfR...@giganews.com...
Mark....this last paragraph says it all....perfectly said. Papa Carl
papa.carl44
______________________________________________________
It is still better than what was. BTW...none of my transplant surgeons or
even my own GP are in the AMA...they all refuse and oppose it. I find that
very interesting.
papa.carl44
___________________________________________________
Gatekeeper??? Only doctors and medical people should be gatekeepers in a
good system. If I didn't have docs who fought like crazy and continually
and then did procedures even when they were denied, I'd be dead. And....we
had to mortgage the entire house, spend all the life savings and go into
debt and will be that way forever....that is the wonderful system we have.
BTW...my wife works for a large hospital and is a nurse manager, I was
working for another hospital system when I got sick...so much for all that
great insurance....half of my problems were generated by insurance company
decisions to NOT treat early on.
papa.carl44
X-No-Archive: Yes
__________________________________________
>
> Gatekeeper??? Only doctors and medical people should be gatekeepers in a
> good system. If I didn't have docs who fought like crazy and continually
> and then did procedures even when they were denied, I'd be dead. And....we
> had to mortgage the entire house, spend all the life savings and go into
> debt and will be that way forever....that is the wonderful system we have.
> BTW...my wife works for a large hospital and is a nurse manager, I was
> working for another hospital system when I got sick...so much for all that
> great insurance....half of my problems were generated by insurance company
> decisions to NOT treat early on.
Papa, I know your story you don't have to tell it again and I wouldn't
begin to argue with anyone over their personal experience.
Yes we do need gatekeepers. The DOD will not take this country down
but it will be the entitlements.I am glad your happy with what those
idiot in DC spit up last year. I think it sucks both the process and
the vomitus that it delivered.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
I'll pass that sentiment on to the families I know who just were finally
able to get their kids insured...kids with transplants who were dropped from
their parents insurance. The kids are insured now, it won't get the parents
houses back or erase the debt they accumulated but it will get some care for
the kids. If that is vomitus....go ahead and puke on me.
papa.carl44
X-No-Archive: Yes
__________________________________________
>
> Gatekeeper??? Only doctors and medical people should be gatekeepers in a
> good system. If I didn't have docs who fought like crazy and continually
> and then did procedures even when they were denied, I'd be dead. And....we
> had to mortgage the entire house, spend all the life savings and go into
> debt and will be that way forever....that is the wonderful system we have.
> BTW...my wife works for a large hospital and is a nurse manager, I was
> working for another hospital system when I got sick...so much for all that
> great insurance....half of my problems were generated by insurance company
> decisions to NOT treat early on.
Papa, I know your story you don't have to tell it again and I wouldn't
begin to argue with anyone over their personal experience.
Yes we do need gatekeepers. The DOD will not take this country down
but it will be the entitlements.I am glad your happy with what those
idiot in DC spit up last year. I think it sucks both the process and
the vomitus that it delivered.
_________________________________________
BTW...not happy at all with the end result...but it is still better than
what was before in some critical ways. The Dems were cowards and the
obstructionists won.
papa.carl44
X-No-Archive: Yes
> Yes we do need gatekeepers. The DOD will not take this country down
> but it will be the entitlements.I am glad your happy with what those
> idiot in DC spit up last year. I think it sucks both the process and
> the vomitus that it delivered.
> _____________________________________________________________________________________
>
> I'll pass that sentiment on to the families I know who just were finally
> able to get their kids insured...kids with transplants who were dropped
> from
> their parents insurance. The kids are insured now, it won't get the
> parents
> houses back or erase the debt they accumulated but it will get some care
> for
> the kids. If that is vomitus....go ahead and puke on me.
It is, for one reason, that world, meaning transplants is one piece of
the puzzle and not what is taking us down. Papa we driven by your
experiences but to argue health care with you & to focus entirely on
transplants is senseless.
If there was reform it would free up the money that is being pissed
away. It is an allocation issue. It is a personal responsibility issue
and I am not talking about the poor. I am talking about money wasted
on unnecessary procedures, medications, doctor's visits, etc.
__________________________________________________________
It was not the side of the reformists who created that mess. I agree whole
heartedly, the healthcare system is horrendous. I would never have gotten
to the point I did if the level of care from the start had been like where I
wound up. If local doctors and hospitals had not been doing mostly what
insurance companies told them to do, and did the medically responsible thing
a lot of issues could be stopped in time...before they become catastrophic.
When you get sick, the early stages of an illness like a severe infection
you are not thinking transplant..and nobody else is either. But you should,
and the doctors should be working to identify what the infection is and not
responding to an insurance company directive of treating it all one
way...cutting costs, no need to culture an infection....make some
assumptions that could ultimately be wrong....this stuff happens every
single day and turns simple events in to major events. NOTHING to do with
transplant medicine, just the difference between good medicine and what goes
on in most hospitals today. I tell all my friends, if they need to go to
the hospital, get to a big city and a teaching hospital, you may not get the
warm and fuzzy, but you will get real medicine. I would have loved to have
real reform...but I'm realistic...this is America...and those things don't
happen anymore.
MZ
> "John C TX"<johnc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6fdb0618-4b2d-4e36...@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>> Yes we do need gatekeepers. The DOD will not take this country down
>> but it will be the entitlements.I am glad your happy with what those
>> idiot in DC spit up last year. I think it sucks both the process and
>> the vomitus that it delivered.
>> _____________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> I'll pass that sentiment on to the families I know who just were finally
>> able to get their kids insured...kids with transplants who were dropped
>> from
>> their parents insurance. The kids are insured now, it won't get the
>> parents
>> houses back or erase the debt they accumulated but it will get some care
>> for
>> the kids. If that is vomitus....go ahead and puke on me.
>
>
> It is, for one reason, that world, meaning transplants is one piece of
> the puzzle and not what is taking us down. Papa we driven by your
Papa, thing is, with this bill as I understand it (who really
understands it?), the insurance companies become even more powerful than
they were before. It was one of the concessions that was made to pass
it. Let government into the arena, and throw the people a bone (e.g.
pre-existing condition coverage), and in exchange we'll give you an even
tighter hold on the industry. So these things that you're talking
about, like insurance companies dictating to doctors how to do things,
won't go away. Instead, the role of third party payors becomes even
more entrenched. And therefore, the health care industry becomes an
even bigger money grab than it already was.
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:SNadnTQV86Cys1LR...@giganews.com...
Mark, I don't disagree at all, you are 100% correct. But I felt like we
have to start somewhere. I've been put into a position where I get to see
on a daily basis some horrendous situations. Before all of this, I never
would have even dreamed such things were possible. I think you described it
correctly and what is hoped for is that once peope realize that it is
possible to get treatment they will continue to fight to get more and force
the industry to respond. I would have favored total reform much more. That
horse ran out of the barn a long, long time ago. I'm afraid all we can do
now is hope for the best of a not so good situation. As long as a major
national resource, the people and their well being, is held in so little
regard that healthcare is not a priority the Nation will suffer. I agree
with you and it amazes me that the right wing crowd call this a gov't. take
over etc. All it proves is they don't even attempt to read or find out
anything, the info you indicated is pretty much out there. This was really
a bonanza for insurance companies. My fear is if what was created is
repealed we will go to a system that has all the powers given to the
insurance companies with none of the so called reforms. In other words, we
will have completely privatized Medicare, Medicaid and very little insurance
for anyone except the very wealthy and very healthy, and certainly nothing
for anyone with a pre-existing condition. I also refuse to believe this is
not what the insurance companies and the people who support those positions
want. It's in their shot term financial interest...and nobody thinks long
term in these issues. But...you are right and seem to get this thing.
papa.carl44
X-No-Archive: Yes
should read
> It is, for one reason, that world, meaning transplants is one piece of
> the puzzle and not what is taking us down. Papa we are all driven by our
> experiences but to argue health care with you & to focus entirely on
> transplants is senseless.
>
> If there was reform it would free up the money that is being pissed
> away. It is an allocation issue. It is a personal responsibility issue
> and I am not talking about the poor. I am talking about money wasted
> on unnecessary procedures, medications, doctor's visits, etc.
I don't disagree with this.....I get very pissed off when I hear someone
talking about gonig for a "selective" MRI and CAT scan..."just to be sure
about things"....and knowing some really sick person can't get one. What we
have in this country is reverse socialism....free enterprise for the poor
and a type of socialism for the rich. BTW...if people think the very poor
just show up at a hospital and get all the great care they want, they need
to go spend some time at a hospital.
MZ
The right wing had no solutions to the problem, so they really don't
have any credibility, and I hadn't really paid much attention to their
objections.
I'd personally like to see the socialists and the libertarians rise up
on this issue, because those seem to be the only two groups that
understand that the only way to "fix" the problem is to improve things
on the supply side (IMO). The two major parties and the spinoffs (eg.
reform party, "tea party" - whatever that is) are too beholden to the
medical establishment and the status quo to even touch that. And that
includes Obama.
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
Once again we agree....and the scary thing is that the "medical community"
they are beholden to....and who has most of the power is NOT the community
that is at the cutting edge of good medicine. What we have created is a
community of business / doctors and practitioners who gave up on the concept
of providing the best medicine possible and have opted for a system that is
good for "some" of them financially. Now, that very well may include some
guy who wants money for research, but by and large it is a group that wants
to direct a lot of patients to their particular chain of facilities and
provide "expedient" care and keep costs down and profits up. For a lot of
them, the hypocratic oath is a long gone idea. I've personally become adept
at firing a doctor if needed.
You are right...we need outside polar forces...other than the two party
system and not the puppets created by either....your suggestion might be the
best....which leads one to think perhaps we are moving toward a more
European form of gov't.? A Parliamentary system?
MZ
I'd expand the blame to everybody in the system. Even the contractors
who build parking garages are making out like bandits. The hospital I
work at has been laying people off, proposing furloughs, etc, meanwhile
they're buying up real estate and building additions like CRAZY, putting
together new lab space, etc. I'm not necessarily against renovations,
improvements, and expansion, but there's no context here. Allow the
workforce to dwindle and build a new wing on the hospital? Implement
hiring freezes on new faculty/researchers and expand the lab space?
Reduce scholarship and aid to new students, but buy and renovate a new
student building? It makes no sense. The reason money is spent in this
manner is because of two things: 1) lobbyists and 2) politicians.
And don't get me going about computers, where the annual tithe is sent
to Bill Gates for all the computers in the damned place so that they can
upgrade from one crappy OS to another in order to more efficiently run
their DOS-based medical programs. :)
My point is that things are more expensive than they need to be, and
there are a LOT of people out there in all industries making a ton of
money because of it. And ultimately, every cent is coming out of the
pockets of patients or the taxpayer in the name of "healthcare".
Treating patients is not an expensive proposition. Supporting the giant
"healthcare" conglomerate is.
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
This could very easily be the system my wife works in. They just told all
the nurses that they would
get a 1% raise and that their pensions would be frozen at their 2008 salary
no matter how much longer
they worked in the system. That was provided they were already vested in
2008. So...they are trying to
get good staff to move on and replace them with entry level staff. Like you
said, all of these changes usually
come at the patient care levels, and never with upper level management who
are almost NEVER medical
people. They chase the dollars where they see them, and not according to
any idea or plan about what is best
in terms of providing good care. This was also very true for the hospital
system I was working in when I got sick,
that place claimed bankruptcy every 18 months or so (claimed to be close to
it) and then reinvented themselves,
changed services, and "got their hands around" the problems. But it was
always the same old BS. The behavioral
healthcare system is even worse. You nailed it....that is what the system
is today.
___________________________________________________________________________________
>
> And don't get me going about computers, where the annual tithe is sent to
> Bill Gates for all the computers in the damned place so that they can
> upgrade from one crappy OS to another in order to more efficiently run
> their DOS-based medical programs. :)
I just went to the Transplant Clinic for my annual review...they changed
computer systems and it took a top ranked
nephrologist about thirty minutes to put my data in a system. Everybody
there was complaining about it. Where my wife is
changes systems regularly, and it never gets any better. I had to chart in
two different systems because the two they purchased would
not interface...and nobody saw that one coming, but they bought the stuff
from the same IS company.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> My point is that things are more expensive than they need to be, and there
> are a LOT of people out there in all industries making a ton of money
> because of it. And ultimately, every cent is coming out of the pockets of
> patients or the taxpayer in the name of "healthcare". Treating patients is
> not an expensive proposition. Supporting the giant "healthcare"
> conglomerate is.
WAY more expensive than they have to be. When I left education I paid my
dues in behavioral healthcare, took the
tough jobs and worked in an inner city crisis center and drug unit. I did
OK for myself and was offered a lot of jobs after
doing that for a few years. After taking over the addictions program at an
outpatient clinic I was offered the job of being
the director of the clinic. I took it. We tripled our business in one
year. I had some support from community groups who we let
use the facility for meetings (read AA and Alanon). They gave me some money
that I used to buy stuff for the Center...tables,
chairs etc. And...the cost at Sam's Club was far, far less than ordering
from the approved catalog....I got in trouble for that. ALL
purchases had to go through one office and come from the approved
companies...and they paid about three times the going rate. It was a
joke and everybody knew it was not right. I kept great books and could
account for everything...still, they wanted me to spend MORE money
on a chair for the waiting area...so who got the kick back on that deal?
My experience was the top level management was NEVER concerned about
patient care....just hand out the satisfaction surveys and if they are
OK...it's all good. Even if they aren't, if the bottom line is good..it's
all OK.
I have found the large University Hospital that treats me now is far more
responsive to patients needs....at least they have been to mine.
Mark...you described the system perfectly.
Papa Carl
John C TX
> The right wing had no solutions to the problem,
Not entirely true as medical savings accounts (now HSA's) were
screwed early on by his royal majesty Sen Ted. He who was so beholden
to the psych lobby of health care--shocking that a rich family screwed
up by drugs & alcohol has reimbursement created by Uncle ted-- that he
limited the MSA's to companies w/ >25 employees. Stupid utterly
stupid as the biggest financial burden is caused from lack of personal
responsibility, sorry papa, but many of the big health issues are self-
inflicted: heart & respiratory issues, adult onset diabetes and all
the issues that we carry due to obesity. MSA's rewarded people who
were healthy. This was not a cure all but a start and a huge big
step. I think this was 1994 but it would have rewarded healthy living
and teh market was so small they screwed those of us who used it. It
should have been more widespread.
Conservatives also fully supported an answer to those that fell in
high risk, OK those of us that are thinking, and that is what Obama
should have pushed for as it was largely a middle & upper income issue
--poor people don't agonize over losing health care-- and it was a
good first step. What did we do?,We create a pool & let industry off
the hook by allowing them to drop the most expensive employees
entirely in the gov't's lap. Partially the GOP's fault but everyone
signed off on it as the process sucked.
It is late and I rarely get on this late and before I fire off an
email calling someone retardo, good night.