Presidential Debate, Round 2
grosse...@my-deja.com
read polls and journalists saying that Bush won the debate. How? I am
baffled as to why they say that. Is the world turning upside down? Only
Peggy Noonan (a Republican) and folks on this forum seem to recognize
Gore superiority in those debates.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mdryoon
>
> Gore won overwhelmingly, one more time. Now I scratch my head when I
> read polls and journalists saying that Bush won the debate. How? I am
> baffled as to why they say that. Is the world turning upside down? Only
> Peggy Noonan (a Republican) and folks on this forum seem to recognize
> Gore superiority in those debates.
If you like the idea that the U.S. Government should be much bigger
than it is right now, you might like Gore's ideas better than GW
Bush's.
The problem with Gore is that he overreached with his populist,
left-wing, anti-Big Business rhetoric. GW Bush is hammering away at
Gore's rhetoric, and by doing so Bush is positioning himself as a
moderate in contrast to Gore's liberalism. This is why Gore is
losing ground to GW Bush, and unless there's some sort of "October
Surprise" against GW Bush, or if GW Bush pulls a "Dan Quayle" at the
last debate, Bush will become the next President of the United
States.
I don't see the American public, in general, wanting to move nearly
as much to the left as Gore wants the U.S. to go. In terms of
actual domestic policies, the American public doesn't seem to be
savoring huge amounts of change, and if GW is like his father (he
looks that way to me), the U.S. won't be radically altered by a GW
Bush presidency.
As for the second debate himself, I think the debate was pretty
close, with both candidates agreeing on many issues, and GW Bush
wanting slightly less Big Government intrusion than Gore, but where
GW Bush, IMO, pulled ahead of Gore during the debate were the times
when Bush effectively countered Gore's challenges to his record as
Governor of Texas. Bush's effective defense seemed to have caught
Gore off guard, almost as though Gore didn't have much bad to say
about GW Bush's record as Governor of Texas after all.
Jim Lehrer did a better job controlling the flow of this debate, but
he did seem to give GW Bush a little more slack than he gave to
Gore.
Richard Yoon
Steve Zipser
Oh shut up, Kin Jong Il
In article <39E574DD...@earthlink.net>, mdr...@earthlink.net
says...
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc http://www.sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
Conrad Johnson Spectron Parasound PASS Labs Gallo Acoustics Davis Seleco
Audible Illusions Straightwire Niles Oracle Graham Rega Benz-Micro EMT
Dunlavy Lexicon Volksamp VUTEC EAD CleanLines Monster RUNCO ESP PS Audio
Nakamichi Genelec Camelot Salamander Audio Logic PSB Panasonic Chesky
ITS YANKEE TIME - BASEBALL IN DA BRONX!
vdo...@my-deja.com
grosse...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Gore won overwhelmingly, one more time. Now I scratch my head when I
> read polls and journalists saying that Bush won the debate. How? I am
> baffled as to why they say that. Is the world turning upside down?
Only
> Peggy Noonan (a Republican) and folks on this forum seem to recognize
> Gore superiority in those debates.
>
Peggy Noonan said it was a "huge" night for Bush -- what Peggy Noonan
were you watching? As for the "folks on this forum" misinterpreting
the obvious, well, it isn't the first time.
No, the world isn't turning upside down -- it's being righted.
Sandman
for toooooo long, I realized that since Walter Cronkite went off the air,
the only two TV reporters/journalists/commentators/talking heads/whatever
you want to call them/... these days I have ANY respect for any more are Dan
Rather and Ted Koppel. ALL the rest of the moronic bunch suck eggs.
Sandman
Kenneth Kirkpatrick
You know I have not really thought about this, but I agree. And Dan Rather
pushes the envelope at times. I have lately been getting most of my news from
the BBC on short wave. I also like Cuba on short wave. They dig out the dirt on
the US on a daily basis. And the music is great. Ken
Sandman
Kenneth Kirkpatrick <ken...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:39E60EE5...@gte.net...
Dayam! And to think I sold my Lafayett short-wave at a flea-market back in
the late-70's. Gonna' have to get me a new fangled model. Miss those
foreign broadcasts!
Sandman
grosse...@my-deja.com
vdo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8s3p79$sli$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> grosse...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Gore won overwhelmingly, one more time. Now I scratch my head when I
> > read polls and journalists saying that Bush won the debate. How? I
am
> > baffled as to why they say that. Is the world turning upside down?
> Only
> > Peggy Noonan (a Republican) and folks on this forum seem to
recognize
> > Gore superiority in those debates.
> >
>
> Peggy Noonan said it was a "huge" night for Bush
I was talking in the New York Times after the first debate.
fmrxsmoker
>Date: 10/12/00 11:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <k2nF5.1842$157.5...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
>
>After watching Round 2 and the insufferable commentary on CNN which ensued
>for toooooo long, I realized that since Walter Cronkite went off the air,
>the only two TV reporters/journalists/commentators/talking heads/whatever
>you want to call them/... these days I have ANY respect for any more are Dan
>Rather and Ted Koppel. ALL the rest of the moronic bunch suck eggs.
>
> Sandman
>
>
>
I'll take Koppel over Rather, less obvioyus bias.
Do you not get Fox News Channel?
Both sides presented, with plenty of balance.
The O'Reily Factor is also quite good.
Jesus Saves, I prefer to invest.
grosse...@my-deja.com
mdryoon <mdr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> grosse...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Gore won overwhelmingly, one more time. Now I scratch my head when I
> > read polls and journalists saying that Bush won the debate. How? I
am
> > baffled as to why they say that. Is the world turning upside down?
Only
> > Peggy Noonan (a Republican) and folks on this forum seem to
recognize
> > Gore superiority in those debates.
>
> than it is right now, you might like Gore's ideas better than GW
> Bush's.
What's the point in being in government if it is no to try to fix
anything. Just to make people feel great repeating over and over that
they live in the geatest country in the world, to be reelected? In
Paris they have winos in the street only. Here in the US it's people
like you and me after they lose their medicare and are dead broke after
a great illness or after undergoing surgery. The future here sometimes
looks more like being killed on the street. Only Democrats will address
those problems.
>
> The problem with Gore is that he overreached with his populist,
> left-wing, anti-Big Business rhetoric. GW Bush is hammering away at
> Gore's rhetoric, and by doing so Bush is positioning himself as a
> moderate in contrast to Gore's liberalism. This is why Gore is
> losing ground to GW Bush, and unless there's some sort of "October
> Surprise" against GW Bush, or if GW Bush pulls a "Dan Quayle" at the
> last debate, Bush will become the next President of the United
> States.
>
> I don't see the American public, in general, wanting to move nearly
> as much to the left as Gore wants the U.S. to go.
Democrats have a good chance of taking back the House.
In terms of
> actual domestic policies, the American public doesn't seem to be
> savoring huge amounts of change, and if GW is like his father (he
> looks that way to me), the U.S. won't be radically altered by a GW
> Bush presidency.
>
> As for the second debate himself, I think the debate was pretty
> close, with both candidates agreeing on many issues, and GW Bush
> wanting slightly less Big Government intrusion than Gore, but where
> GW Bush, IMO, pulled ahead of Gore during the debate were the times
> when Bush effectively countered Gore's challenges to his record as
> Governor of Texas. Bush's effective defense seemed to have caught
> Gore off guard, almost as though Gore didn't have much bad to say
> about GW Bush's record as Governor of Texas after all.
>
> Jim Lehrer did a better job controlling the flow of this debate, but
> he did seem to give GW Bush a little more slack than he gave to
> Gore.
>
> Richard Yoon
>
fmrxsmoker
>Date: 10/13/00 5:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8s6tqc$dse$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>
>What's the point in being in government if it is no to try to fix
>anything.
To see that things don't get broken.
>Here in the US it's people
>like you and me after they lose their medicare and are dead broke after
>a great illness or after undergoing surgery.
If there were no Medicare, you'd be better able to afford the surgery.
Medicare caused the price of healthcare to increase.
>The future here sometimes
>looks more like being killed on the street. Only Democrats will address
>those problems.
Only Democrats cause the problems.
Sandman
fmrxsmoker <fmrxs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001013004012...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> >From: "Sandman" sand...@mediaone.net
> >Date: 10/12/00 11:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <k2nF5.1842$157.5...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
>
> >
> >After watching Round 2 and the insufferable commentary on CNN which
ensued
> >for toooooo long, I realized that since Walter Cronkite went off the air,
> >the only two TV reporters/journalists/commentators/talking heads/whatever
> >you want to call them/... these days I have ANY respect for any more are
Dan
> >Rather and Ted Koppel. ALL the rest of the moronic bunch suck eggs.
> >
> > Sandman
> >
> >
> >
>
> I'll take Koppel over Rather, less obvioyus bias.
Agreed.
> Do you not get Fox News Channel?
Yes.
> Both sides presented, with plenty of balance.
I dunno about that...
> The O'Reily Factor is also quite good.
Not bad, but not up to Koppel's standards IMHO.
Sandman
brendar...@my-deja.com
"Sandman" <sand...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> fmrxsmoker <fmrxs...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20001013004012...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> > >Date: 10/12/00 11:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: <k2nF5.1842$157.5...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
> >
> > >
> > >After watching Round 2 and the insufferable commentary on CNN which
> ensued
> > >for toooooo long, I realized that since Walter Cronkite went off
the air,
> > >the only two TV reporters/journalists/commentators/talking
heads/whatever
> > >you want to call them/... these days I have ANY respect for any
more are
> Dan
> > >Rather and Ted Koppel. ALL the rest of the moronic bunch suck
eggs.
> > >
> > > Sandman
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I'll take Koppel over Rather, less obvioyus bias.
>
>
> > Do you not get Fox News Channel?
>
>
> > Both sides presented, with plenty of balance.
>
>
> > The O'Reily Factor is also quite good.
>
>
> Sandman
>
Edward Straight, chairman of Bush's internet
operations staff, said his organization's latest
research shows that fully 80 percent of messages
favorable to Bush on Bush message boards are put
there by paid staff of the Bush Campaign. Upwards
of 40 percent of pro-Bush messages posted on other
non-Bush controlled boards are posted by hired
Bush public relations personnel, Straight said.
The entire operation is run out of basement offices
in a downtown Pittsburgh, Pa. bank, Straight reports.
"the cost advantages of this kind of campaign are
enormous," said Straight. "For a few hundred thousand
dollars we have been able to hire nearly 400 internet
users to repost our campaign materials and to maintain
a presence on all message boards."
"Make no mistake about it," Straight said, "The postings
you see extolling and defending the candidacy of George
W. Bush Jr. are not for the most part posted by amateurs
-- they're paid professional and there are a lot of them.
We think they're doing a bang up job."
http://koppel2nite.homepage.com/news.htm
brendar...@my-deja.com
In article <uDHF5.5128$gw.3...@typhoon.we.rr.com>,
"Sandman" <sand...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> fmrxsmoker <fmrxs...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20001013004012...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> > >From: "Sandman" sand...@mediaone.net
> > >Date: 10/12/00 11:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: <k2nF5.1842$157.5...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
> >
> > >
> > >After watching Round 2 and the insufferable commentary on CNN which
> ensued
> > >for toooooo long, I realized that since Walter Cronkite went off
the air,
> > >the only two TV reporters/journalists/commentators/talking
heads/whatever
> > >you want to call them/... these days I have ANY respect for any
more are
> Dan
> > >Rather and Ted Koppel. ALL the rest of the moronic bunch suck
eggs.
> > >
> > > Sandman
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I'll take Koppel over Rather, less obvioyus bias.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Do you not get Fox News Channel?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Both sides presented, with plenty of balance.
>
> I dunno about that...
>
> > The O'Reily Factor is also quite good.
>
Grantland
>Edward Straight, chairman of Bush's internet
>operations staff, said his organization's latest
>research shows that fully 80 percent of messages
>favorable to Bush on Bush message boards are put
>there by paid staff of the Bush Campaign. Upwards
>of 40 percent of pro-Bush messages posted on other
>non-Bush controlled boards are posted by hired
>Bush public relations personnel, Straight said.
>
>The entire operation is run out of basement offices
>in a downtown Pittsburgh, Pa. bank, Straight reports.
>"the cost advantages of this kind of campaign are
>enormous," said Straight. "For a few hundred thousand
>dollars we have been able to hire nearly 400 internet
>users to repost our campaign materials and to maintain
>a presence on all message boards."
>
>"Make no mistake about it," Straight said, "The postings
>you see extolling and defending the candidacy of George
>W. Bush Jr. are not for the most part posted by amateurs
> -- they're paid professional and there are a lot of them.
>We think they're doing a bang up job."
>
> http://koppel2nite.homepage.com/news.htm
>
'Sounds like slimey lies to me. Slimy, stinking Democrat lies.
Grantland
(not paid)
George M. Middius
> 'Sounds like slimey lies to me. Slimy, stinking Democrat lies.
Those are not as bad as shitty, virulent Repooblican lies though.
George M. Middius
Steve Krulick
> operations staff, said his organization's latest
> research shows that fully 80 percent of messages
> favorable to Bush on Bush message boards are put
> there by paid staff of the Bush Campaign. Upwards
> of 40 percent of pro-Bush messages posted on other
> non-Bush controlled boards are posted by hired
> Bush public relations personnel, Straight said.
>
> The entire operation is run out of basement offices
> in a downtown Pittsburgh, Pa. bank, Straight reports.
> "the cost advantages of this kind of campaign are
> enormous," said Straight. "For a few hundred thousand
> dollars we have been able to hire nearly 400 internet
> users to repost our campaign materials and to maintain
> a presence on all message boards."
>
> "Make no mistake about it," Straight said, "The postings
> you see extolling and defending the candidacy of George
> W. Bush Jr. are not for the most part posted by amateurs
> -- they're paid professional and there are a lot of them.
> We think they're doing a bang up job."
If this were true, why would the "chairman of Bush's internet
operations staff" undermine the efficacy of such a covert "bang
up job" by blabbing about it? If I were Bush, I'd fire anyone
going public with such stuff. Sounds like more cointelpro from
Gore's oppo squad at work here.
Got some reputable proof and cites for this stuff? I mean, it
sounds plausible, and I, for one, would like to BELIEVE that
it's true that Gore and Bush campaigns have to PAY to get people
to talk them up on NGs, and I have even ACCUSED some of the more
blatant and breathless hyperpuffs of being on the DNC or RNC
payroll, but that was just to rile them up. IF you have PROOF
that I'm busting my unpaid butt to answer trolls who are getting
bucks to talk up Shrub or Log, please post it. Indeed, I'd be
happy to let them pay ME to rave about Dubya and Algore, and
even let me argue with my Naderite self, too!
You seem to be the only person posting this info -- with no
attribution -- in as many NGs as you can. I am responding in 3
NGs you've posted to; God only knows how many other NGs I DON'T
read are being similarly subjected to your unsubstantiated
claims. Put up or shut up.
--------------------------
"Nothing can stop
the power of
an informed citizenry
when it is
empowered, organized, and
motivated." (Ralph Nader)
--------------------------
grosse...@my-deja.com
We are in red neck territory here. Good. I don't believe you are going
to oust the Democrats any time soon with such a philosophy.
In article <20001013123318...@ng-fl1.aol.com>,
grosse...@my-deja.com
What about Barbara Wawa, Sam Donalson and Larry King... I think you'll
find Great journalists -actually the best journalists in the world-
working for The Washington Post, New York Times, WSJ, The New Yorker,
only. None on TV.
In article <k2nF5.1842$157.5...@typhoon.we.rr.com>,
"Sandman" <sand...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> After watching Round 2 and the insufferable commentary on CNN which
ensued
> for toooooo long, I realized that since Walter Cronkite went off the
air,
> the only two TV reporters/journalists/commentators/talking
heads/whatever
> you want to call them/... these days I have ANY respect for any more
are Dan
> Rather and Ted Koppel. ALL the rest of the moronic bunch suck eggs.
>
> Sandman
>
>
Joe Cosby
news:8sd1d9$tkv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Sorry, I forgot to thank you for promoting something intelligent !
>
Damn straight! What this world -needs- is more INTELLIGENT THINGS!
--
Joe Cosby
Here at Microsoft, drive head contention is more than just our promise
to you.
It's a way of life.
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Sandman
Geesh!!!
Sandman
<brendar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8sd1d9$tkv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Sorry, I forgot to thank you for promoting something intelligent !
>
> In article <uDHF5.5128$gw.3...@typhoon.we.rr.com>,
> "Sandman" <sand...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > fmrxsmoker <fmrxs...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20001013004012...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> > > >From: "Sandman" sand...@mediaone.net
> > > >Date: 10/12/00 11:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> > > >Message-id: <k2nF5.1842$157.5...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
> > >
> > > >
> > > >After watching Round 2 and the insufferable commentary on CNN which
> > ensued
> > > >for toooooo long, I realized that since Walter Cronkite went off
> the air,
> > > >the only two TV reporters/journalists/commentators/talking
> heads/whatever
> > > >you want to call them/... these days I have ANY respect for any
> more are
> > Dan
> > > >Rather and Ted Koppel. ALL the rest of the moronic bunch suck
> eggs.
> > > >
> > > > Sandman
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'll take Koppel over Rather, less obvioyus bias.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > Do you not get Fox News Channel?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > Both sides presented, with plenty of balance.
> >
> > I dunno about that...
> >
> > > The O'Reily Factor is also quite good.
> >
> > Not bad, but not up to Koppel's standards IMHO.
> >
> > Sandman
> >
> > You got that right: compare Koppel to this:
>
> Edward Straight, chairman of Bush's internet
> operations staff, said his organization's latest
> research shows that fully 80 percent of messages
> favorable to Bush on Bush message boards are put
> there by paid staff of the Bush Campaign. Upwards
> of 40 percent of pro-Bush messages posted on other
> non-Bush controlled boards are posted by hired
> Bush public relations personnel, Straight said.
>
> The entire operation is run out of basement offices
> in a downtown Pittsburgh, Pa. bank, Straight reports.
> "the cost advantages of this kind of campaign are
> enormous," said Straight. "For a few hundred thousand
> dollars we have been able to hire nearly 400 internet
> users to repost our campaign materials and to maintain
> a presence on all message boards."
>
> "Make no mistake about it," Straight said, "The postings
> you see extolling and defending the candidacy of George
> W. Bush Jr. are not for the most part posted by amateurs
> -- they're paid professional and there are a lot of them.
> We think they're doing a bang up job."
>
> http://koppel2nite.homepage.com/news.htm
Sandman
<grosse...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8sdfsb$890$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> What about Barbara Wawa, Sam Donalson and Larry King... I think you'll
> find Great journalists -actually the best journalists in the world-
> working for The Washington Post, New York Times, WSJ, The New Yorker,
> only. None on TV.
Agreed. Again, the only ones I really respect on TV are Koppel and Rather.
Wawa still talks like she's gargling solid gold cufflinks, Donaldson's a
crashing bore, and King, well.... let's not even go there. :-)
Sandman
>
>
> In article <k2nF5.1842$157.5...@typhoon.we.rr.com>,
> "Sandman" <sand...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > After watching Round 2 and the insufferable commentary on CNN which
> ensued
> > for toooooo long, I realized that since Walter Cronkite went off the
> air,
> > the only two TV reporters/journalists/commentators/talking
> heads/whatever
> > you want to call them/... these days I have ANY respect for any more
> are Dan
> > Rather and Ted Koppel. ALL the rest of the moronic bunch suck eggs.
> >
> > Sandman
> >
> >
>
>
grosse...@my-deja.com
TV personality now, is not nearly as good as Canby was in The New York
Times.
In article <c9vG5.17719$gw.18...@typhoon.we.rr.com>,
Kenneth Kirkpatrick
Sandman, I do recommend short-wave. And the new digital models with the direct
entry of the frequency is a huge time saver. A great all around receiver for the
last 10 years is the Sony ICF 2010. I have a Drake R8A also. The Sony is fun to
take on trips and it does a great job on broadcasts. It is a breeze to use and
the multiple memories and rows of pushbuttons make it a charm to use. My only
complaint with this receiver is that rough handling causes the batteries to open
contact just long enough to lose the memory settings. It may have been improved
by now. ( or discontinued) Mine is 8 years old. If you do decide to check out
the new models, go to the bookstore and buy a copy of " Passport to Worldband
Radio". This book always has a great review of current receivers and frequency
guides. Cheers, Ken
Sandman
<grosse...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8seqf9$7e1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I'll miss Vincent Canby who just died of cancer. Roger Ebert, mostly a
> TV personality now, is not nearly as good as Canby was in The New York
> Times.
Ditto.
Sandman
Sandman
direct
> entry of the frequency is a huge time saver. A great all around receiver
for the
> last 10 years is the Sony ICF 2010. I have a Drake R8A also. The Sony is
fun to
> take on trips and it does a great job on broadcasts. It is a breeze to use
and
> the multiple memories and rows of pushbuttons make it a charm to use. My
only
> complaint with this receiver is that rough handling causes the batteries
to open
> contact just long enough to lose the memory settings. It may have been
improved
> by now. ( or discontinued) Mine is 8 years old. If you do decide to check
out
> the new models, go to the bookstore and buy a copy of " Passport to
Worldband
> Radio". This book always has a great review of current receivers and
frequency
> guides. Cheers, Ken
Thanks for the info, Ken. I'm definitely going to get back into short wave
and ham radio again some day. Back in high school, I built all that stuff
from kits, passed the FCC licensing exam in New York, and my call letters
were K1RCV. It was great fun - I was not only able to communicate with
people around the globe, I was able to listen to dozens of foreign
broadcasts about the Cuban Missile Crisis as it was unfolding...
Sandman
fmrxsmoker
>Date: 10/15/00 4:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8sdeuk$7fk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>We are in red neck territory here. Good. I don't believe you are going
>to oust the Democrats any time soon with such a philosophy.
>> >Here in the US it's people
>> >like you and me after they lose their medicare and are dead broke
>after
>> >a great illness or after undergoing surgery.
>>
>> If there were no Medicare, you'd be better able to afford the
>surgery.
>> Medicare caused the price of healthcare to increase.
>>
>> >The future here sometimes
>> >looks more like being killed on the street. Only Democrats will
>address
>> >those problems.
>>
>> Only Democrats cause the problems.
>>
Democrats were behind medicare which has made healthcare vastly more expensive
than it would have otherwise been. It has slowed advancement of medical
technology and does next to nothing in preventive measures.
That's not redneck, that's reality
Critics say Medicare is not part of the cure
By August Gribbin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
New medical technology and old politics are clashing over the cost of
Medicare payments. Top Stories
• Barak proposes alliance with Sharon bloc
• Wounded Cole sailors return home
• Jewish settlers skeptical of Arafat
• Election could reshape court
• Alternate Southern flag rises
• Bush seen leading Gore in race
Physicians, patients, members of Congress and the makers of such
pain-erasing and lifesaving devices as heart pumps and hip replacements declare
the government is crippling medical innovation and cheating the sick.
They charge the agency that runs Medicare with delaying or denying
reimbursement for breakthrough medical tests, therapies and devices. They
complain the agency sometimes sets reimbursement rates so low that doctors and
hospitals can't afford to apply the new remedies.
Now a bipartisan group of 31 U.S. representatives has petitioned the House
Ways and Means Committee to force reforms on the agency —the Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA) — and to eliminate what they call the
"barriers to innovative medical technologies."
Nineteen patient and professional medical groups have sent a similar
appeal, and Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, has introduced a companion
reform measure in the Senate.
Complaints about the financing administration are not new. It has been the
subject of numerous critical General Accounting Office reports. One released
last spring declares the HCFA typically "falls short in addressing weaknesses
repeatedly cited in audits and other reviews."
Indeed, Congress last year passed a measure requiring the agency to create
a new payment method to cover innovative medical technologies. To a large
degree that hasn't happened, and Congress faults the recalcitrant agency.
Asked for the financing administration's response to such criticism, a
spokesman produced a statement declaring the HCFA has a "new, open and
accountable coverage process" that will "facilitate prompt coverage."
The new process has been implemented. Because of its limited success, the
31 representatives and their allies are asking Congress to fuse with
forthcoming balanced-budget legislation the provisions of a bill called the
Medicare Patient Access to Technology Act.
Among other things, that measure would force the financing administration
to update Medicare payment programs each year, to improve and report annually
on the "timeliness and appropriateness of reimbursement decisions" and to open
for scrutiny certain decision-making procedures.
The sponsors of the bill say it is absolutely necessary. But understanding
this new urgency for reform takes some explaining.
Medicare is, of course, a $200 billion federal health insurance policy and
program that covers 38 million Americans who are 65 years old and older, plus
the disabled and those with permanent kidney failure.
The HCFA — commonly called "Hic Fah" — is the agency within the
Department of Health and Human Services that manages Medicare.
From a central office in Baltimore and 11 regional facilities, the
agency's 4,200 civil servants also administer Medicaid, the insurance program
for those with low incomes, and the $24 billion Children's Health Insurance
Program. Additionally, they regulate and certify certain activities of
hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies and intermediate care facilities
for the mentally retarded.
Nancy-Ann M. DeParle, a former Rhodes scholar and lawyer by training,
heads the agency. She was appointed by President Clinton in 1997. Miss DeParle
left the agency Oct. 1 to take a temporary teaching job at Harvard. Her deputy,
Michael Hash, has been named acting director.
HCFA decrees what medical items and services the insurance will cover and
how much it will pay. Importantly, the agency's reimbursement decisions
typically set the standard for private insurers as well. Thus, HCFA policies
may affect people not covered by Medicare. The agency's decisions even
influence what medical products will be developed, marketed and used.
Agency documents explain that although HCFA can make coverage and policy
decisions that apply uniformly everywhere in the nation, it mostly leaves the
decision making to 51 "local contractors," all private insurers who process and
pay Medicare claims.
The Social Security law that created Medicare in 1965 demands that HCFA
limit its payouts to medical tests and procedures that are deemed "reasonable
and necessary."
The law also mandated the system of using local contractors. However, many
in medicine question whether insurance-company deciders — who may or may not
be medically trained or experienced — actually are capable of judging whether
a procedure or device is necessary or reasonable.
Further, since local contractors make the decisions, coverage for tests
and procedures may be approved in one community and denied in another. Also,
the criteria for approving or denying coverage can vary from place to place.
And since the contractors' decisions are made case by case, decisions about the
same product or process may be made over and over.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) figures in all this, too.
Before the financing administration can even think of covering a new
procedure or product, it must pass rigid FDA scrutiny as "safe and effective."
Only when the test, device or procedure has the FDA's imprimatur can the
manufacturer turn to the financing administration for a "code."
The authoritative and critical codes describe the obscure medical language
of doctors, insurers and government agencies. They standardize billing.
Medical device makers must apply for a code that represents the formal
medical description of their product or procedure. Without a code, there can be
no coverage and no payment. And without payment, the product is not likely to
be used.
Physicians and medical-device makers have problems with the way codes are
granted.
They say, for example, that it takes 600 to 800 days for the agency to
process a coding application. They believe that is unreasonable.
What's more, the agency often requires manufacturers to demonstrate six
months of "market experience" before allowing them to apply for a code. That's
a disincentive. It requires the device maker to persuade hospitals and
physicians to use its product and charge patients full price instead of using a
Medicare-covered product the patient usually can more readily afford.
Dr. Lowell Satler, director of Coronary Intervention at the Washington
Hospital Center, says: "Often we're in the position of needing to use new
technology but can't because of reimbursement issues. It is a major problem in
all subspecialties."
The financing administration's critics say unexplained requirements,
paperwork delays and repeated demands for documents and clinical data cause
manufacturers impenetrable confusion while adding backbreaking costs. They
offer examples to illustrate HCFA dysfunction:
• In 1987, technologists developed DEXA (dual-energy X-ray
absorptiometry), a pain-free bone-density test. DEXA equipment eliminated the
need to inject patients with dyes, and for the first time allowed physicians to
diagnose osteoporosis, a common and costly disease that dangerously weakens
bones.
Previously, physicians diagnosed and began treating the disease after
patients' bones broke. But with DEXA they can spot the disease, begin
medicating and prevent fractures. Doctors considered that a humane, cost-saving
development.
The FDA quickly sanctioned the DEXA system. But the financing
administration demanded new "technology assessments." After six years, the HCFA
still had made no decision. Then Congress yielded to intense patient demand and
passed a law requiring Medicare to cover the testing. The law took effect in
1998.
• In 1984, the FDA approved the first cochlear implant, then a
revolutionary device.
The cochlea is a tube within the inner ear. It's shaped like a snail's
shell and contains nerve endings that transmit sound. When the implant's
electrodes are connected to the cochlea and linked to a powerful, but tiny,
computer and an earpiece microphone, the device simulates sound. It can cure
many among the profoundly deaf.
In 1986, two years after FDA approval, the financing administration
authorized Medicare payments for cochlear implants. But it covered just a part
of the cost, effectively limiting its use.
Cochlear implants have improved dramatically since 1984. So has their
cost. And Medicare reimbursement has not kept pace. Hospitals now pay about
$21,000 for the devices. At best, Medicare pays $11,500, and typically
hospitals lose $9,000 on every cochlear implant — a loss most can't afford.
So although 54 percent of all patients needing the implant are Medicare
eligible, just 15 percent have received them.
• In the mid-1980s, devices that can save patients from fatal heart
problems became available.
They are called automatic implantable cardioverter/ defibrillators, or
AICDs. They are electronic devices with a battery, computer and electrodes that
are surgically attached to a patient's heart.
The financing administration decided to cover the implant but again
refused to meet costs. Example:
Basing its reimbursement on evidence the medical community insisted was
flawed, Medicare paid $9,300 for a procedure costing $17,620. That left $8,320
for the hospital or whomever to make up.
Finally, an audit by an outside firm showed that the protesting medics
were correct. So after four years of controversy the agency adjusted its
payment policy.
Now HCFA policies are said to be hindering use of the improved
next-generation implants.
It might be argued that in limiting insurance payouts, the financing
administration is justifiably holding down costs.
Yet, Dr. Kang, a top HCFA official, declared that "promoting biomedical
research and ensuring that Medicare beneficiaries receive the highest-quality
care possible are long-standing priorities."
Pamela Bailey, head of AdvaMed, the Advanced Medical Technology
Association, says: "It's not a matter of money — or costs. Many of the new
technologies are cost savers. They reduce the need for hospitalization.
"What's involved is reforming the process in Medicare for assessing and
making available new technologies. The situation steadily worsens because of
staffing problems at Medicare and because science is advancing so rapidly that
Medicare can't keep up with the progress."
Miss Bailey's trade association represents 800 makers of medical devices,
diagnostic products and medical information systems. Her association recently
joined hands with the Lewin Group, a prominent health care consulting firm, to
do a detailed study of HCFA-Medicare procedures. The resulting two-volume
report indicates just how numerous and complex the issues are.
After all, says Cliff Goodman, the study's author, "The Medicare system is
designed to pay bills, not to accommodate timely adoption or value-based
payment of new technologies."
The trouble is, though, that the system has a direct impact on technology
development and patient care. "What we need is a consistent, transparent set of
ground rules, and getting them is a legitimate concern of manufacturers," Mr.
Goodman adds.
Dr. Satler puts it this way: "I don't want to be negative regarding
Medicare. However, if the equipment and procedures are eligible for use and the
FDA approves them, Medicare should pay."
Might...@homebody.com
>Edward Straight, chairman of Bush's internet
>operations staff, said his organization's latest
>research shows that fully 80 percent of messages
>favorable to Bush on Bush message boards are put
>there by paid staff of the Bush Campaign. Upwards
>of 40 percent of pro-Bush messages posted on other
>non-Bush controlled boards are posted by hired
>Bush public relations personnel, Straight said.
Typical stupid liberal rantings.
Might...@homebody.com
Kenneth Kirkpatrick
> Kenneth Kirkpatrick <ken...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:39EB2482...@gte.net...
Sandman, You are way ahead of me on this deal! I have been listening since I was
a kid, but I never got into the ham stuff. You will be amazed at the selectivity
and sensitivity of the new receivers! They are a hoot to play with. And you can
just dial in stations at the push of a button. My Drake can be accessed from a
PC to store hundreds of frequencies. You can cover allot of bandwidth quickly.
Get you one! Enjoy! Ken
sandmanj
> Sandman wrote:
> > Thanks for the info, Ken. I'm definitely going to get back into short
wave
> > and ham radio again some day. Back in high school, I built all that
stuff
> > from kits, passed the FCC licensing exam in New York, and my call
letters
> > were K1RCV. It was great fun - I was not only able to communicate with
> > people around the globe, I was able to listen to dozens of foreign
> > broadcasts about the Cuban Missile Crisis as it was unfolding...
> >
> > Sandman
>
> Sandman, You are way ahead of me on this deal! I have been listening since
I was
> a kid, but I never got into the ham stuff. You will be amazed at the
selectivity
> and sensitivity of the new receivers! They are a hoot to play with. And
you can
> just dial in stations at the push of a button. My Drake can be accessed
from a
> PC to store hundreds of frequencies. You can cover allot of bandwidth
quickly.
> Get you one! Enjoy! Ken
Just think - with all that fancy new gear out there PLUS a pair of Vergence
M-00 amplified speakers (yes, Ed, I will be contacting you shortly about
that), I'll not only enjoy great selectivity and sensitivity but great SOUND
(for shortwave, that is) as well!
Dayam! Just when I thought I had my budget figured out you come along, Ken,
and get me all hot and bothered about whipping out another credit card to
rejuvenate an old favorite pasttime!
Sandman
Kenneth Kirkpatrick
> "Kenneth Kirkpatrick" <ken...@gte.net> wrote in message
Sorry about that! :-) One of my favorite things to do before I fall asleep at
night is tune in Cuba. Here in Texas the signal is as strong and steady as a
local broadcast. They have great jazz, and killer commie style propaganda! It
used to infuriate me to hear the lies, but I just get a kick out of it now. And
there is a grain of truth in some of those lies! The amplified speakers will be
a great help. I use one too. Also, when shopping for receivers, look for the
sync feature. It is a circuit that locks onto one side of the signal and helps
greatly reduce fading caused by late arriving signals. Kind of a ghost buster
circuit. The Sony sync circuit works the best to my ears. And of course, you
need to think about a long wire. You will be pleasantly surprised how many
stations are on the same frequencies and still have the same programs. Of course
you can listen to allot of them on your PC, but it is not near as fun. Cheers,
Ken
sandmanj
Geesh, Ken - I just got a new computer, monitor and a new DVD audio/video
player, and you're still making me drool about all those other toys?
Whaddya think I am, made of money?
Sandman
Kenneth Kirkpatrick
Hey, don't whine! I just sprung for a new Graham 2 tonearm , new Basis amrboard,
and a Koetsu Urishi! Just to get the strings a little sweeter!!! That is my
birthday, Christmas, and year end bonus to myself all wrapped up in my analog
front end! So my only other thoughts will be cheap used vinyl for awhile!
Compared to high end audio, shortwave is CHEAP! Cheers, Ken
Marc Phillips
>I'll miss Vincent Canby who just died of cancer. Roger Ebert, mostly a
>TV personality now, is not nearly as good as Canby was in The New York
>Times.
Agreed. Canby was one of the best, much better than Ebert or Maslin or Kael.
My favorite has to be Danny Peary, though.
The death of Vincent Canby reminds me that there have been a lot of passings
lately, none of whom could be called a major celebrity, but noteworthy
nonetheless. One surprise was the death last week of Ben Orr, the guitarist
and co-lead singer of The Cars, at 53, of pancreatic cancer. Even though I
really wouldn't call myself a big Cars fan, I felt bad, especially when I saw
the rather dinky obit.
Boon
sandmanj
All right already! So YOU're made of money!
:-)
But I'll let you in on a little secret: last Sunday when in San Diego, I
purchased a $5,500.00 original Javier Mulio framed painting from a La Jolla
gallery for my wife as a wedding anniversary present.
I'm just a whiner.
Sandman
Kenneth Kirkpatrick
That was very nice! My wife would like me to hang out with more guys like you!
She has no idea what my stereo stuff costs. She knows it is expensive. I know
when she sees the new arm and little red cartridge, it is going to cost me some
jewelry for her little neck. :-) So, you have cleared the way with your wife for
some little old shortwave! Happy shopping! Ken
sandmanj
So join us at CES 2001 for the annual RAO luncheon at the Rock Hard Cafe!
My wife will be there this year - bring yours as well! (E-mail JA for
details).
Javier Mulio is a Spanish painter who uses a unique framing company for his
work outside of Madrid and is fast becoming well known in the U.S. When
first visiting La Jolla Fine Art two years ago his paintings there just
jumped out of the wall at us! My wife insisted at the time on my buying her
a book full of photos of his paintings.
To get an idea of the quality of his work, go to www.lajollafineart.com,
click on "Gallery" on the left, then scroll down on the right to the 8th
sample painting (out of 9), the one with the name "Javier" under it. The
one I picked was IMHO much finer, had a greenish color scheme (e.g. flute
glass, sliced kiwi fruit, green-grey cracked marble top), and my wife fell
in love with it during an earlier trip to San Diego and La Jolla in
mid-September. Knowing how fast some of his other works have been grabbed
up at that gallery, I decided I'd better get it before it's gone forever.
The guy who runs the shop is a world-renowned surgeon who works 80-90 hours
a week (teaching at UC San Diego, plus work as a senior surgeon at a local
hospital there, and traveling the world on speaking tours, while not
managing his art gallery). His gallery is his hobby - his labor of love,
and it shows!
> She has no idea what my stereo stuff costs. She knows it is expensive.
Mine knows about the cost of my stereo stuff, and what Javier Mulio
paintings cost two years ago; she doesn't realize how much they've
appreciated in price since then, or exactly what this one cost. Nor will
she ever know. ;-)
> I know
> when she sees the new arm and little red cartridge, it is going to cost me
some
> jewelry for her little neck. :-) So, you have cleared the way with your
wife for
> some little old shortwave!
You got both me and the WAF figured out, dude!
> Happy shopping!
I'm shopped out for awhile. That's why I'm putting the shortwave thing on
the back burner for awhile. I need time to appreciate the latest splurges.
Hell, I'm still learning about all the things this new computer will do (and
I haven't even touched the built-in video editing software yet) and the DVD
player doesn't arrive until tomorrow! :-)
Sandman
Kenneth Kirkpatrick
You sound like a pirate with a ship full of recent spoils! Oh the fun of
splurges. I looked over the paintings and your artist is excellent! I also like
Mustipic. I started painting with oil when I was 8 years old. In college, I took
pen and ink and oil. My teacher said I had talent, but then there would always
be one kid in the class that would pull off some incredible work in the class. I
thought, now I have ability, but that kid has talent! But my art back ground
helps me allot in my chosen profession. I was in Sante Fe last year. I thought I
would pick up some art for the home. NOT! Everything I wanted was 20,000.00.
Talk about an expensive taste. I would go through a gallery, make my pick, then
ask price. Then I would just tuck my tail and walk out like a sheep. I plan to
copy some of the stuff myself someday. :-) I was in a gallery in Maui last
summer. There was a local artist who was using metal in his acrylic paintings
that gave the work an incredible 3d look. It was KILLER! I picked one out. I
just loved it. I asked the salesman the price. He said " eighteen". I started to
walk out, tail between the legs again, then I stopped and turned, and said "
eighteen hundred?" He smiled " No, eighteen thousand" . I retucked my tail and
hit the door. Back to the starving artist sale! You made a great purchase. The
artist can do the photo realism thing. It is very hard. Enjoy! Cheers, Ken
sandmanj
well.
"sandmanj" <sand...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:7OMH5.12292$vV6.8...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
>
> "Kenneth Kirkpatrick" <ken...@gte.net> wrote
>
> > You sound like a pirate with a ship full of recent spoils! Oh the fun of
> > splurges.
>
> Ah, yes... my JVC DVD player arrived today!!! Color me:
>
> > I looked over the paintings and your artist is excellent! I also like
> Mustipic.
>
> Yes, I like his stuff too...
> What a story!
>
> >You made a great purchase. The artist can do the photo realism thing. It
is
> very hard.
>
> Thank you. I agree.
>
> > Enjoy!
>
> I'm sure she will. It's hidden away in the attic for a formal unveiling
> November 14. 3 is her lucky number, and this is our 3rd Anniversary, so I
> thought she deserved something special.
>
> Sandman
>
>
>
sandmanj
should have, but here's the order:
Critter #1: after the words: "Color me:"
Critter #2: after the words: "What a story!"
Critter #3: after the words: "I think she deserved something special."
Oh well, back to the drawing board....
"sandmanj" <sand...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:7OMH5.12292$vV6.8...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
>
> "Kenneth Kirkpatrick" <ken...@gte.net> wrote
>
> > You sound like a pirate with a ship full of recent spoils! Oh the fun of
> > splurges.
>
> Ah, yes... my JVC DVD player arrived today!!! Color me:
>
> > I looked over the paintings and your artist is excellent! I also like
> Mustipic.
>
> Yes, I like his stuff too...
>
> What a story!
>
> >You made a great purchase. The artist can do the photo realism thing. It
is
> very hard.
>
jcha...@lonestar.utsa.edu
fmrxs...@aol.com (fmrxsmoker) wrote:
Re credibility of journalists:
> Do you not get Fox News Channel?
>
> Both sides presented, with plenty of balance.
Fox apparently does not want 'both sides' presented when it comes to
growth hormones in your food supply.
http://user.intersatx.net/jc/news.html
Walter Cronkite for President! He'd do it if the Electors ask.
http://user.intersatx.net/jc/cronkite.html
Mike McKelvy
<jcha...@lonestar.utsa.edu> wrote in message
news:8spest$af$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <20001013004012...@ng-fm1.aol.com>,
> fmrxs...@aol.com (fmrxsmoker) wrote:
> Re credibility of journalists:
>
> > Do you not get Fox News Channel?
> >
> > Both sides presented, with plenty of balance.
>
> Fox apparently does not want 'both sides' presented when it comes to
> growth hormones in your food supply.
>
> http://user.intersatx.net/jc/news.html
>
hormones pose no risk to human health, AFAIK.