(NDC) New recommendations on breast cancer screening
ML
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Contact: HHS Press Office
(202) 690-6343
Secretary Sebelius Statement on New Breast Cancer Recommendations
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued the following statement today
on new breast cancer screening recommendations from the U.S.
Preventive Services Task Force:
“There is no question that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Recommendations have caused a great deal of confusion and worry among
women and their families across this country. I want to address that
confusion head on. The U.S. Preventive Task Force is an outside
independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations.
They do not set federal policy and they don’t determine what services
are covered by the federal government."
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2009pres/11/20091118a.html
Okay, I know the number is much higher of men to women on this NG
But most men if not all have women in their lives of various ages and
relationships,
so I feel comfortable putting this out for discussion.
My feeling is, the good news is that more of awareness has been
brought to
this issue.
The bad news, I feel, is it has been very confusing and, for some like
myself,
the explanations of the new recommendations could do more harm than
good.
For me, no health insurance, I no longer have the option to choose and
have a
mammogram or see my doctor and have her opinion.....but I am one of
the many
outraged women in response to these new recommendations.
False positives have always been a bone of contention for me with
doctors;
I have a serious maternal history of ovarian cancer, and had to push
and fight
to get my doc to let me have C125 and the newer antigen test for
possible
o cancer. I would much rather deal with a false positive than miss
the possibility
of detecting cancer at a point where I could begin treatment.
My sis was 47 when suddenly (as is the common case w/ovarian) she was
found
to have stage 4 ovarian cancer, which our mom had died from, which our
grandmother
had died from.
My sis had been routinely screened and was compliant and still, that
is how it went.
She underwent treatment, radiation to brain because it already had
metastasized,
and 6+ years after ending chemo is well.
The bottom is that women should think for themselves, do what they
choose and can,
to hopefully catch breast or other cancers, men too, in early stages.
Junt...@123.net
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> Wednesday, November 18, 2009
>
>
> Contact: HHS Press Office
> (202) 690-6343
> Secretary Sebelius Statement on New Breast Cancer Recommendations
>
> HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued the following statement today
> on new breast cancer screening recommendations from the U.S.
> Preventive Services Task Force:
>
> Recommendations have caused a great deal of confusion and worry among
> women and their families across this country. I want to address that
> confusion head on. The U.S. Preventive Task Force is an outside
> independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations.
> are covered by the federal government."
> http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2009pres/11/20091118a.html
>
>
> The bottom is that women should think for themselves, do what they
> choose and can,
> to hopefully catch breast or other cancers, men too, in early stages.
Mary you don't have health insurance.Get your butt to a city hospital
perhaps you will get help there.I know in NYC even w/out HInsurance
there are hospitals that will treat you.If it is serious they will put
you on medicaid.Look around cancer is no joke.Love You Gary
ML
<everybody's.d...@that.rag.com> wrote:
> On 2009-11-22 00:54:00 +0900, band beyond description
> <everybody's.d...@that.rag.com> said:
>
> >http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/kiss_ex-drummer_peter_criss_...
>
> and take care of yourself, like Gary says!
> --
> Peace,
> Steve
Thanks, you guys, my friends.
Alabama is weird, it is not at all consumer
friendly or financial-hard-times friendly.
But there is a clinic that is sliding scale,
run by a church, and a friend here thinks there may be another
one downtown on the southside.
It is so hard to get motivated in the
discouraging situations and stuff you have to go through
when you don't have money here.
I'll see what I can do. Thanks again. :)
Edwin Hurwitz
<30f715e5-5d47-40ca...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
ML <mary.eg...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think it's too different anywhere. I've got insurance and just
generated over $2k in bills without really trying. I have lost friends
to the death panels of the current health care scheme. Since the 80s,
it's been a war on the middle and lower class and the victors are
currently enjoying their spoils: a fully bought a paid for congress.
Reagan should be proud.
Edwin
--
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your
enemies.
-Moshe Dayan
ML
> In article
> <30f715e5-5d47-40ca-9aec-f8d6f0544...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Right, Edwin. But y'know I lived in California for 43
years, and things I took for granted that were available
there do not exist here.
With 300$ in the bank, no savings, no more IRA's etc,
I don't seem to qualify for medicaid.
When I worked last for 7 years in a clinic, tons of
people had it, but it seems to be limited to people with
young kids or people with disabilities.
There is no "welfare" as we used to call it.
No state disability as in CA, unemployment is very difficult
to obtain.....I never got it after I lost my job.
There is one hospital for low-no-income Jeff County residents,
and of course I've heard horror stories about it.
Even so I tried to contact them a number of times with no luck.
Two sliding scale clinics for all of Birmingham.
When I worked at Children's Hospital we had patients from
Mississippi and Tennessee, plus all over the state, because there
is so little available.
Edwin Hurwitz
<f7197caf-2f21-4e09...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
ML <mary.eg...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah, right. I neglected to factor in the CA experience. I hope you can
work it out. CO is a little better than Alabama, but a lot of the US is
very much the same. I do think that it's utterly repulsive that our
health care bill is being raped by the corporate interests as we speak.
How those people claim to have Jesus on their side is simply bewildering.
I just don't get it.
Ray
> to the death panels of the current health care scheme.
Edwin: with respect to "death panels" are you being sarcastic or
serious here? I can't tell if you believe they are real or not;
they're not real.
Kirk McElhearn
>> In article
>> I have lost friends
>> to the death panels of the current health care scheme.
>
> Edwin: with respect to "death panels" are you being sarcastic or
> serious here? I can't tell if you believe they are real or not;
> they're not real.
You've never had care refused by an insurance company?
Kirk
--
Kirkville: http://www.mcelhearn.com
Writings about more than just Macs
http://www.readinghenryjames.com
Reading Henry James
Ray
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/opinion/20aronowitz.html?scp=1&sq=addicted%20to%20mammograms&st=cseI am one of
> the many
> outraged women in response to these new recommendations.
>
> False positives have always been a bone of contention for me with
> doctors;
> I have a serious maternal history of ovarian cancer, and had to push
> and fight
> to get my doc to let me have C125 and the newer antigen test for
> possible
> o cancer. I would much rather deal with a false positive than miss
> the possibility
> of detecting cancer at a point where I could begin treatment.
Everyone should of course think for themselves over when they
personally want a given screening test or not, and family history is
of course an important factor to consider when weighing such
decisions. On a population (as opposed to individual) level however
in my view the statistics don't add up for standardized population
breast screening below 50 which is why I support the new
recommendations, which say that women shouldn't get screened below 50
*unless they are at high risk for breast cancer*.
More info here:
Ray
> On 2009-11-23 16:40:27 +0100, Ray <rayb...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> >> In article
> >> I have lost friends
> >> to the death panels of the current health care scheme.
>
> > Edwin: with respect to "death panels" are you being sarcastic or
> > serious here? I can't tell if you believe they are real or not;
> > they're not real.
>
> You've never had care refused by an insurance company?
Sure, but that's not the same as the "death panels" that the Repub and
teabagger scare mongers are claiming exists in the health care bill.
Thinking about it now though I may have misread Edwin with respect to
"current health care scheme" I read that as in reference to the health
care bill, but he may have (and now I'm thinking likely did) mean it
in relation to health care as it currently exists.
With respect to health care as it currently exists - and with respect
to any health care system that can realistically exists for at least
the foreseeable future - there is and will always be decisions that
effect peoples' health including their lives, and these decisions are
in part based on economics. If one wants to characterize that as
"death panels" then on one level that's correct, but there's no way
around the fact that economics dictate such decisions on a regular
basis no matter what health care system is in place.
This isn't to say health care systems can't be improved - of course
they can, including (if not especially) the U.S.'s health care
system. Throwing around the phrase "death panel" as a reason to
either oppose or support change in our health care system is
misleading scare mongering though - again said "death panel" decisions
will be there in whatever system we can realistically have or adopt.
KenF
> Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
> > I have lost friends
> > to the death panels of the current health care scheme.
>
> Edwin: with respect to "death panels" are you being sarcastic or
> serious here? I can't tell if you believe they are real or not;
> they're not real.
Oh, they're real all right. When I was first diagnosed I did
my due diligence with Google and discovered the best expert
in the US was at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.
I asked my doctor here to make the referral and he did but the
death panel at my insurance company said Mayo was "out of network"
and wouldn't cover the office visit. I paid for it myself.
When I saw the doctor at Mayo he recommended a course of therapy
that has been standard in Europe for the last five years. The
death panel at my insurance company wouldn't pay for it because
it was "experimental". I paid for it myself.
I have gold-plated, super-duper, A#1 American health insurance
through the University of Illinois but if I hadn't been able to
get my hands on a quarter of a million dollars real quick (over
the course of three years), I wouldn't be sitting here typing
this.
They're real all right, don't you ever doubt it.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Ken Fortenberry
> Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
>> to the death panels of the current health care scheme.
>
> Edwin: with respect to "death panels" are you being sarcastic or
> serious here? I can't tell if you believe they are real or not;
> they're not real.
Oh, they're real all right. When I was first diagnosed I did
my due diligence with Google and discovered the best expert
in the field was at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.
Ken Fortenberry
> Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
>> to the death panels of the current health care scheme.
>
> Edwin: with respect to "death panels" are you being sarcastic or
> serious here? I can't tell if you believe they are real or not;
> they're not real.
Oh, they're real all right. When I was first diagnosed I did
volkfolk
This is part of what scares the hell out of me regarding the Public
Option/Government run health care plan. I realize that many insurance
companies aren't much better, but the bottomline is we don't need
bureaucrats and bean counters deciding what people need when it comes
to healthcare we need doctors and patients deciding on a course of
treatment together, based on the individuals needs
Take care of yourself Mary (and everybody else)
Scot
Ray
Read what I wrote in response to Kirk before you triple-posted your
post here, Ken.
Ray
> the bottomline is we don't need
> bureaucrats and bean counters deciding what people need when it comes
> to healthcare we need doctors and patients deciding on a course of
> treatment together, based on the individuals needs
The bottom line is said "bean counters" will always be there, no
matter what health care system we have.
Also the bottom line is that generally speaking practicing general
care physicians - to say nothing of the average lay-person - do not
have the time to understand and keep up all of the information they'd
need to to when making these sorts of decisions in so many different
areas, which is why why said government panels are a pubic health
service.
Ray
> bankrupt the country with no real benefits.
I'm not a huge fan of the bill myself, but in my view it's better than
nothing and it won't "bankrupt the country." Nice scare mongering
though - it's up there with "death panels."
Ken Fortenberry
> KenF wrote:
>> Ray wrote:
>>> Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
>>>> I have lost friends
>>>> to the death panels of the current health care scheme.
>>> Edwin: with respect to "death panels" are you being sarcastic or
>>> serious here? I can't tell if you believe they are real or not;
>>> they're not real.
>
> Read what I wrote in response to Kirk before you triple-posted your
> post here, Ken.
My nntp server is having a bad day, I tried to remove its duplicates
and the only one I actually meant to post came from Google.
The point is we already have "death panels" and "rationing" it's just
that the decisions are being made by insurance company bureaucrats
whose main concern is their bottom line. We have to take the profit
motive out of health care. I don't mean cost containment that is
rational and science based, I mean obscene insurance company profit.
--
Ken Fortenberry
volkfolk
I know that bean counters are always going to be involved, that
doesn't mean that I have to like it though. I find the whole
healthcare issue completely daunting. Our insurance (Blue Cross/Blue
Sheild owned HMO Blue) has doubled in cost in the past 8-10 years.
It's pretty frustrating to pay over $100 per week for Insurance and
then pay $20 per office visit. Jane's company pays approximately 60%
of her insurance too.
It seems to me that the idea of a for profit health care industry is
the problem. When the CEO of a Hospital or an insurance company is
making millions of dollars per year, yet the same insurance hospital
or insurance company is denying treatment to people based on pre-
existing conditions there is something really wrong with that system
Scot
Ray
wrote:
We're in 100% agreement here. This bill of course won't do that, but
it's at least a crack in the "private is always better" fundamentalist
belief system.
Ray
> mongering?
What in your mind is my "scare mongering" here?
> Did you watch 60 Minutes last night?
No. In my experience when 60 Minutes covers science stuff that I'm an
expert on they have often gotten it wrong or at least misleading, as
such I stopped watching 60 Minutes with any regularity years ago.
Ray
I agree with everything you are saying here. Everything you are
saying here however supports the argument for significantly more
government intervention and control in our healthcare system, which
perhaps you agree with but I read your first post here as being in
opposition to because of this wording:
"This is part of what scares the hell out of me regarding the Public
Option/Government run health care plan. I realize that many insurance
companies aren't much better, "
I'm wary of government run health care too, but I'm more wary of our
system as it is currently run.
Kirk McElhearn
> Why don't you tell us how it's going to be paid for instead of scare
> mongering?
Um, taxes? Instead of paying insurance premiums, you pay taxes to the
government for a public option? The way it is in every advanced country
other than the US...
Kirk McElhearn
> This is part of what scares the hell out of me regarding the Public
> Option/Government run health care plan. I realize that many insurance
> companies aren't much better, but the bottomline is we don't need
> bureaucrats and bean counters deciding what people need when it comes
> to healthcare we need doctors and patients deciding on a course of
> treatment together, based on the individuals needs
Well, I live in France, where there is a "socialized" health-care
system, and I can ensure you that it works very well; much better than
the repugs would have you believe. Patients choose their doctors, and
care is individualized, not left to bean counters.
Ray
>
> This health care bill will bring about the bakruptcy of the USA
> quicker...
>
> Add another trillion dollars of debt to this country and we are closer
> to bankruptcy.
Mastering the Obvious Dept: add another *penny* "of debt to this
country and we are closer to bankruptcy."
In any event the CBO says the bill will *reduce* the federal deficit
by over $100 billion:
___________________________
Revised Estimate for H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America
Act
CBO has just released a revised estimate of the net budgetary impact
of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, the health
care reform bill that was passed by the House of Representatives on
November 7. The revised estimate corrects a mistake that CBO made in
its earlier assessment of a provision that would establish the
Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) program, a
federal insurance program for long-term care. In the previous
estimate, which was transmitted on November 6, CBO and the staff of
the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that changes in direct
spending and revenues from enacting H.R. 3962 would yield a net
reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the
2010-2019 period. To reflect the change in our assessment of the CLASS
provision, CBO and JCT now estimate that the legislation would yield a
net reduction in deficits of $138 billion over the 10-year period.
[This entry was posted on Friday, November 20th, 2009]
___________________________
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=428
> In case you don't know what's going on, Ron Paul finally got a piece
> of legislation passed which allows Congress to see what the Fed
> actually spent TARP ($700 billion) on.
Nice change of subject - gee, what a surprise.
> >> Did you watch 60 Minutes last night?
>
> >No. In my experience when 60 Minutes covers science stuff that I'm an
> >expert on they have often gotten it wrong or at least misleading, as
> >such I stopped watching 60 Minutes with any regularity years ago.
>
> LOL... Well then there is no point in going forward... You are an
> expert and all that matters... #################
Nice blatant misread - gee, what a surprise.
Kirk McElhearn
>>> Why don't you tell us how it's going to be paid for instead of scare
>>> mongering?
>>
>> Um, taxes? Instead of paying insurance premiums, you pay taxes to the
>> government for a public option? The way it is in every advanced country
>> other than the US...
>
>
> Feel free to be specific. Taxes on what?
Taxes on your income, sales tax, cigarette tax, whatever. Here in
France, it's the equivalent of "payroll taxes"; you pay a percentage of
income up to a ceiling. In most countries, that's how it works.
>
> This is the main problem. People want to spend money while there is
> no money to be spent.
No, what people don't understand is that with a public option, you'd be
paying taxes for something that, right now, you're paying premiums for.
You'd probably end up saving money in the long run, because there would
no longer be profit-making entities running health care.
JimK
wrote:
>This health care bill is abysmal. This is just a quicker way to
>bankrupt the country with no real benefits.
>
>The money would be better spent on giving out 100,000 scholarships for
>doctors.
>
>We would be better off opening up our drug market to Canadian drugs
>(why do we pay three times the world price for drugs when most of the
>drug companies are here?).
>
>Congress doesn't have the balls to go against the big drug companies.
>They also don't have the the balls to go after the insurance
>companies. Why they allow these assholes to get between me and my
>doctor is ridiculous.
I'm not defending the insurance companies when I say this, but it's
unrealistic to talk about them "getting between you and your doctor".
After all, whoever is paying for the medical care should have some say
in the matter; the issue that needs to be resolved is to what degree.
If you don't want anyone to come between you and your doctor, you
always have the option of paying for your medical care out of your own
pocket. Then you could see any doctor and have any care you could
afford. Of course, that probably wouldn't be much.
JimK
Kirk McElhearn
> It's actually intimately involved with health care. How do you pay
> for it? This bill adds heaps of debt on the backs of US taxpayers at
> a time when the rest of the world is shunning our dollar and our debt.
> Adding fuel to that fire is completely ignorant. What type of
> government health care will you get when the country is bankrupt?
And it's offset by what people don't pay to insurance companies. That's
really pretty easy to understand, isn't it? Why do you forget about
that?
JimK
Your story raises one of the issues that presents a real dilemma with
our health care system, or any other health system, I suppose.
Obviously, we'd all like to see the very best doctors and be treated
at the very best hospitals. But just as obviously, not everyone can.
Those doctors and hospitals have limited capacity and can only see so
many patients, and they're usually the most expensive. So the dilemma
is how to decide who gets to see the good doctors and who gets stuck
seeing the bad ones.
JimK
Joe
> Well, I live in France, where there is a "socialized" health-care
> system, and I can ensure you that it works very well; much better than
> the repugs would have you believe. Patients choose their doctors, and
> care is individualized, not left to bean counters.
I was in England recently, visiting my 70 year old Dead Head friend who
lives there. Earlier in the year, he'd had bypass surgery, so when I was
there, he had a couple of doctor appts for follow up and testing.
So, I got to hear a bit about the British health care system, And
everything he told me about it sounded great. It was humane, with people's
health being put above money and the profit margin.
And, as long as the goal of the American health care system is making
money, there will be no quality health care system. Remove profit from the
equation, and bammo, right off the top, everything is going to cost less,
much less. Remember that the bottom line includes the insurance companies
having to pay taxes, so without taxes as part of the equation, prices can
only go down. And, let's not forget the millions that the CEOs of these
companies get. Remove their blood-money bonuses, and the cost can only go
down.
It's unbelievable to me that there's a debate of any kind going on. It's
as simple as life vs death, in my eyes. Profitable medicine = death;
government sponsored/administered health care = health.
That said, I have Kaiser Insurance, an HMO, and I'm really happy with
them. I'm pleased with my doctors and with the health care I do receive.
And, I've had Kaiser for close to 30 years, so if I thought they were
blood-sucking jackels of capitalism, I might have noticed that at least
once in 30 years, but I haven't.
The only downside...I got my update statement for next year, and it's
going to cost me more each month than I'll get in Social Security. But,
I'm not complaining exactly; at age 62, I feel like my doctors are saving
my life.
A nationwide system set up like Kaiser and sponsored by the government,
would be fine with me as the new American health care system.
Only an imbecile would be opposed to lower cost, higher quality care than
we have now. Or someone with a vested interest - like the Republicans - in
wanting to see you dead.
In any case, whatever it takes to get health care, do it. If you have to
stand on line for 8 hours, do it. If you have to go to a sliding scale
clinic, just do it. You only have one life, and a doctor can help you get
the most out of that. Just do whatever it takes to see one. Especially if
you're at high risk for anything.
Joe
JimK
wrote:
I don't know how this bill is going to turn out, but I don't think
that just a crack in the system is going to be enough. If enough
people don't see enough of a change for the better as a result of the
bill, it will be viewed as a failure and it will be virtually
impossible to expand the crack in the forseeable future. I really
think the Democrats have to go for the whole ball of wax, or a pretty
big chunk of it, or the opportunity will be lost. I hate to be a
pessimist, but I don't see them having the balls to do it.
JimK
JimK
<volk...@verizon.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
>This is part of what scares the hell out of me regarding the Public
>Option/Government run health care plan. I realize that many insurance
>companies aren't much better, but the bottomline is we don't need
>bureaucrats and bean counters deciding what people need when it comes
>to healthcare we need doctors and patients deciding on a course of
>treatment together, based on the individuals needs
>
>Take care of yourself Mary (and everybody else)
>
>Scot
Until doctors and hospitals and drug manufacturers start giving away
their products and services for free, it's unrealistic to think that
you can have a health care system without bean counters. As I posted
elsewhere, everyone would like to get the very best health care and
see the very best doctors available, but at some point cost has to be
a factor. The problem is determining where that point is, and I don't
know why you would trust a private insurance company to make a better
decision that a government one. After all, we already have a
government health care plan in Medicare, and while it's certainly not
without its faults, most people seem pretty happy with it.
JimK
JimK
You just contradicted your previous post where you said you were
scared as hell about having a government run health insurance plan
instead of a private one like the ones you describe above.
JimK
JimK
wrote:
>On 2009-11-23 17:35:01 +0100, volkfolk <volk...@verizon.net> said:
>
>> This is part of what scares the hell out of me regarding the Public
>> Option/Government run health care plan. I realize that many insurance
>> companies aren't much better, but the bottomline is we don't need
>> bureaucrats and bean counters deciding what people need when it comes
>> to healthcare we need doctors and patients deciding on a course of
>> treatment together, based on the individuals needs
>
>Well, I live in France, where there is a "socialized" health-care
>system, and I can ensure you that it works very well; much better than
>the repugs would have you believe. Patients choose their doctors, and
>care is individualized, not left to bean counters.
>
>Kirk
The Republicans have learned that big lies work better than little
ones.
JimK
Edwin Hurwitz
<ee32a156-bb20-4691...@e31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
volkfolk <volk...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 3:53�pm, ML <mary.egret1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> > Wednesday, November 18, 2009
> >
> > Contact: HHS Press Office
> > (202) 690-6343
> > Secretary Sebelius Statement on New Breast Cancer Recommendations
> >
> > HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued the following statement today
> > on new breast cancer screening recommendations from the U.S.
> > Preventive Services Task Force:
> >
> > � � �There is no question that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
> > Recommendations have caused a great deal of confusion and worry among
> > women and their families across this country. I want to address that
> > confusion head on. The U.S. Preventive Task Force is an outside
> > independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations.
> > They do not set federal policy and they don�t determine what services
> > are covered by the federal
> > government."http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2009pres/11/20091118a.html
> >
> > Okay, I know the number is much higher of men to women on this NG
> > But most men if not all have women in their lives of various ages and
> > relationships,
> > so I feel comfortable putting this out for discussion.
> >
> > My feeling is, the good news is that more of awareness has been
> > brought to
> > this issue.
> > The bad news, I feel, is it has been very confusing and, for some like
> > myself,
> > the explanations of the new recommendations could do more harm than
> > good.
> >
> > For me, no health insurance, I no longer have the option to choose and
> > have a
> > mammogram or see my doctor and have her opinion.....but I am one of
> > the many
> > outraged women in response to these new recommendations.
> >
> > False positives have always been a bone of contention for me with
> > doctors;
> > I have a serious maternal history of ovarian cancer, and had to push
> > and fight
> > to get my doc to let me have C125 and the newer antigen test for
> > possible
> > o cancer. �I would much rather deal with a false positive than miss
> > the possibility
> > of detecting cancer at a point where I could begin treatment.
> >
> > My sis was 47 when suddenly (as is the common case w/ovarian) she was
> > found
> > to have stage 4 ovarian cancer, which our mom had died from, which our
> > grandmother
> > had died from.
> > My sis had been routinely screened and was compliant and still, that
> > is how it went.
> >
> > She underwent treatment, radiation to brain because it already had
> > metastasized,
> > and 6+ years after ending chemo is well.
> >
> > The bottom is that women should think for themselves, do what they
> > choose and can,
> > to hopefully catch breast or other cancers, men too, in early stages.
>
> This is part of what scares the hell out of me regarding the Public
> Option/Government run health care plan. I realize that many insurance
> companies aren't much better, but the bottomline is we don't need
> bureaucrats and bean counters deciding what people need when it comes
> to healthcare we need doctors and patients deciding on a course of
> treatment together, based on the individuals needs
>
> Take care of yourself Mary (and everybody else)
>
> Scot
Um, we already have that with our current system. Bean counters run it
and I have at least one friend who has died because they decided she
wasn't worth the effort. The question is do you trust bean counters who
are supposedly accountable to us or bean counters who are only
accountable to their board and shareholders? To look at it with a
completely jaundiced eye, do you prefer greed and corruption to dictate
your health care or just corruption? We've given greed a chance and it
obviously doesn't work.
Edwin
--
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your
enemies.
-Moshe Dayan
Edwin Hurwitz
<b83533db-4144-4438...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
volkfolk <volk...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 11:46�am, Ray <rayb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 8:35�am, volkfolk <volkfo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > �the bottomline is we don't need
> > > bureaucrats and bean counters deciding what people need when it comes
> > > to healthcare we need doctors and patients deciding on a course of
> > > treatment together, based on the individuals needs
> >
> > The bottom line is said "bean counters" will always be there, no
> > matter what health care system we have.
> >
> > Also the bottom line is that generally speaking practicing general
> > care physicians - to say nothing of the average lay-person - do not
> > have the time to understand and keep up all of the information they'd
> > need to to when making these sorts of decisions in so many different
> > areas, which is why why said government panels are a pubic health
> > service.
>
> I know that bean counters are always going to be involved, that
> doesn't mean that I have to like it though. I find the whole
> healthcare issue completely daunting. Our insurance (Blue Cross/Blue
> Sheild owned HMO Blue) has doubled in cost in the past 8-10 years.
> It's pretty frustrating to pay over $100 per week for Insurance and
> then pay $20 per office visit. Jane's company pays approximately 60%
> of her insurance too.
You're doing very well. We pay more for our premiums, our office visits
are $40 and there's a ton of stuff that's not covered (we've spent over
$6,000 on out of pocket this year, not including prescriptions). Plus,
we're self employed, so we don't have an employer taking care of
premiums or paperwork. If fact, we're gearing up to do it for employees.
Just because you don't like the bean counters in the private sector,
don't throw out the possibility of bean counters in the public. If we
take bean counters as a given, we have to look at the other aspects of
the differences and make judgments from that, not from that which will
remain constant.
ML
You're right, Joe. So is Kirk. So is Ken.
And mostly so is Don. I think it might be easier
for me to just say who it is I *don"t* agree with.
I will call the clinic and will look further into
the state-run health options.
And it is really only because I don't want my son
to lose me any sooner than he has to.
I just keep thinking I'll get lucky on the job front,
but week after week goes by and it doesn't happen.
Kaiser is wonderful, I'd live my right foot for their
healthcare.
But I'd be thrilled with any healthcare I could afford
at this point. I just turned 57; my mom died at 58 and
as I've said before my sis (who has Kaiser) was diagnosed
with O Stage IV at age 47.
Ray, what if your sister or GF were part of the small per-
centage of women under 50 saved by breast cancer screening?
That panel recommendation is very harmful, and many will die
who follow it.
We absolutely need health care as France and Great Britain have.
Sadly, as you pointed out Joe, we ain't going to get it anytime
soon, because of greed and ignorance.
Edwin Hurwitz
<0ae092f9-6410-49d7...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Ray <ray...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 12:14�pm, Edwin Hurwitz <ed...@indra.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > I have lost friends
> > to the death panels of the current health care scheme.
>
> Edwin: with respect to "death panels" are you being sarcastic or
> serious here? I can't tell if you believe they are real or not;
> they're not real.
Well, a good friend of mine, Jane, whose last name I'll leave out for
privacy issues, contracted breast cancer. Her insurance company paid for
one bout of chemo and then decided that everything else was too
expensive and cancelled her policy. She couldn't afford other treatment,
she died. If that's not a death panel, I don't know what is. They
decided that keeping her money from her premiums which she had paid for
30 or so years, was more important than doing what they could to cure
her disease. Her doctors thought she had a good shot at surviving, but
if she couldn't afford the treatment, she could get better. It sucks to
this day.
There are more publicly documented examples, one of which was put in
front of Congress this summer, but I don't have the links at my
fingertips.
Ray
> Ray <rayb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >the CBO says the bill will *reduce* the federal deficit
> >by over $100 billion:
>
> trillion
I cited to CBO. Who or what is your source?
> >Nice change of subject - gee, what a surprise.
>
> It's actually intimately involved with health care. How do you pay
> for it?
How does one pay for anything the govt does?
You for example were strongly gung ho about us invading Iraq - how
were we going to pay for that? (And, not incidentally, its
aftermath?)
> This bill adds heaps of debt on the backs of US taxpayers at
Yawn. Cite your source(s).
Edwin Hurwitz
<42fd5707-f583-4bd1...@a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Ray <ray...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 7:45�am, Kirk McElhearn <kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2009-11-23 16:40:27 +0100, Ray <rayb...@hotmail.com> said:
> >
> > >> In article
> > >> I have lost friends
> > >> to the death panels of the current health care scheme.
> >
> > > Edwin: with respect to "death panels" are you being sarcastic or
> > > serious here? �I can't tell if you believe they are real or not;
> > > they're not real.
> >
> > You've never had care refused by an insurance company?
>
> Sure, but that's not the same as the "death panels" that the Repub and
> teabagger scare mongers are claiming exists in the health care bill.
> Thinking about it now though I may have misread Edwin with respect to
> "current health care scheme" I read that as in reference to the health
> care bill, but he may have (and now I'm thinking likely did) mean it
> in relation to health care as it currently exists.
>
> With respect to health care as it currently exists - and with respect
> to any health care system that can realistically exists for at least
> the foreseeable future - there is and will always be decisions that
> effect peoples' health including their lives, and these decisions are
> in part based on economics. If one wants to characterize that as
> "death panels" then on one level that's correct, but there's no way
> around the fact that economics dictate such decisions on a regular
> basis no matter what health care system is in place.
>
> This isn't to say health care systems can't be improved - of course
> they can, including (if not especially) the U.S.'s health care
> system. Throwing around the phrase "death panel" as a reason to
> either oppose or support change in our health care system is
> misleading scare mongering though - again said "death panel" decisions
> will be there in whatever system we can realistically have or adopt.
My point is that what Palin and the others are trying to use to scare
people already exists. From what I gather is your original definition of
death panel, ie. a group of people that decide if you live or die based
on color of skin, religious views, etc, then obviously there are no
death panels, but if you mean people who decide whether their CEO's
yacht is more important than your life, then yes, we have them now.
Ray
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:08:41 -0800 (PST), Ray <rayb...@hotmail.com>
While I (and I'm guessing probably you too) hope that you are wrong
here, I agree that what you are saying here is very plausible if not
likely.
> I really
> think the Democrats have to go for the whole ball of wax, or a pretty
> big chunk of it,
I agree; this is a weak this bill.
> or the opportunity will be lost. I hate to be a
> pessimist, but I don't see them having the balls to do it.
It's pretty clear now that they don't have enough votes to get
something stronger, though I don't see it so much as having lack of
balls as simply not having enough progressive-oriented elected
representatives - in addition to still too many repubs there are also
too many blue dog-dems to get a stronger bill.
JimK
wrote:
>Ray <ray...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>On Nov 23, 9:58�am, DG <nos...@nospam.nospammmm> wrote:
>>>
>>> This health care bill will bring about the bakruptcy of the USA
>>> quicker...
>>>
>>> Add another trillion dollars of debt to this country and we are closer
>>> to bankruptcy.
>>
>>Mastering the Obvious Dept: add another *penny* "of debt to this
>>country and we are closer to bankruptcy."
>
>
>Which brings us closer quicker? A penny or an estimated trillion
>dollar government program?
>
>
>>In any event the CBO says the bill will *reduce* the federal deficit
>>by over $100 billion:
>
>
>I have a bridge to sell you. The bill is estimated to cost 1 to 1.6
>trillion and you think it's going to save money because a political
>pawn of the government says so?!?!? This is politics and you are
>buying into stupidity.
>
>What government program hasn't blown out it's cost estimates? Social
>security? Medicare? Medicaid?
>
>
>
>>> In case you don't know what's going on, Ron Paul finally got a piece
>>> of legislation passed which allows Congress to see what the Fed
>>> actually spent TARP ($700 billion) on. �
>>
>>Nice change of subject - gee, what a surprise.
>
>
>It's actually intimately involved with health care. How do you pay
>for it? This bill adds heaps of debt on the backs of US taxpayers at
>a time when the rest of the world is shunning our dollar and our debt.
>Adding fuel to that fire is completely ignorant. What type of
>government health care will you get when the country is bankrupt?
>
<snip>
There are certainly lots of reasons to be skeptical about the
financial impact of whatever bill Congress ends up passing, but
there's really no need to mischaracterize what the bill is all about
(the Republicans do that well enough without any help). The bill has
nothing to do with instituting a government health *care* program.
It's a government health insurance program. There won't be any
government run hospitals and doctors won't be working for the
government.
JimK
JimK
wrote:
>JimK wrote:
>>
>>DG wrote:
>>
>>>This health care bill is abysmal. This is just a quicker way to
>>>bankrupt the country with no real benefits.
>>>
>>>The money would be better spent on giving out 100,000 scholarships for
>>>doctors.
>>>
>>>We would be better off opening up our drug market to Canadian drugs
>>>(why do we pay three times the world price for drugs when most of the
>>>drug companies are here?).
>>>
>>>Congress doesn't have the balls to go against the big drug companies.
>>>They also don't have the the balls to go after the insurance
>>>companies. Why they allow these assholes to get between me and my
>>>doctor is ridiculous.
>>
>>I'm not defending the insurance companies when I say this, but it's
>>unrealistic to talk about them "getting between you and your doctor".
>
>
>They aren't looking out for my health. They are looking out for their
>profits. They drive up costs with all their nonsensical paperwork.
>
>
>>After all, whoever is paying for the medical care should have some say
>>in the matter; the issue that needs to be resolved is to what degree.
>>If you don't want anyone to come between you and your doctor, you
>>always have the option of paying for your medical care out of your own
>>pocket. Then you could see any doctor and have any care you could
>>afford. Of course, that probably wouldn't be much.
>
>
>
>I see whatever doctor I want. If they don't want to pay then I do.
>What am I paying them for?
You seem to have totally missed the point, which is that it's crazy to
think that if an insurance company is paying for your health care it's
not going to have any say whatsoever about what it's paying for.
JimK
JimK
wrote:
>JimK wrote:
>>
>>Your story raises one of the issues that presents a real dilemma with
>>our health care system, or any other health system, I suppose.
>>Obviously, we'd all like to see the very best doctors and be treated
>>at the very best hospitals. But just as obviously, not everyone can.
>>Those doctors and hospitals have limited capacity and can only see so
>>many patients, and they're usually the most expensive. So the dilemma
>>is how to decide who gets to see the good doctors and who gets stuck
>>seeing the bad ones.
>
>
>
>Those are the tough decisions that need to be made. I'd rather a
>doctor make that decision than an insurance company.
Sure, who wouldn't? But that doesn't address the issue of how everyone
can get the very best health care when the best facilities and best
doctors don't have the capacity to treat everyone.
JimK
Ray
>
> Ray <rayb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 12:14 pm, Edwin Hurwitz <ed...@indra.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > I have lost friends
> > > to the death panels of the current health care scheme.
>
> > Edwin: with respect to "death panels" are you being sarcastic or
> > serious here? I can't tell if you believe they are real or not;
> > they're not real.
>
> Well, a good friend of mine, Jane, whose last name I'll leave out for
> privacy issues, contracted breast cancer. Her insurance company paid for
> one bout of chemo and then decided that everything else was too
> expensive and cancelled her policy. She couldn't afford other treatment,
> she died. If that's not a death panel, I don't know what is. They
> decided that keeping her money from her premiums which she had paid for
> 30 or so years, was more important than doing what they could to cure
> her disease. Her doctors thought she had a good shot at surviving, but
> if she couldn't afford the treatment, she could get better. It sucks to
> this day.
Yeah as I had indicated above I was referring to the "death panel"
scare mongering with respect to the health bill - there is no
provision in the bill that ads any "death panels" to the system that
don't already exist. My take is that a government run health
insurance system, implemented correctly, would be better in that
regard than what we've got now and help reform the private sector in
that regard - we seem to be on the same page there.
And although my read here is that it was a while ago now, my
condolences for the loss of your friend.
Kirk McElhearn
> The bill has
> nothing to do with instituting a government health *care* program.
> It's a government health insurance program. There won't be any
> government run hospitals and doctors won't be working for the
> government.
Good point, and one that is masked by the use of the term "health
care". Here in France, it's a kind of hybrid. While the government runs
hospitals, doctors - when they don't work in hospitals - are on their
own. The government has control over drug prices, by negotiating with
drug companies (and drugs cost, on average, about 1/5 what they do in
the US), but pharmacies are privately run. So it's a combination of
insurance and care.
Ray
> Ray wrote:
>
> >> Ray <rayb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >the CBO says the bill will *reduce* the federal deficit
> >> >by over $100 billion:
>
> >> I have a bridge to sell you. The bill is estimated to cost 1 to 1.6
> >> trillion
>
> >I cited to CBO. Who or what is your source?
>
> Economist...
Lemme guess: the WSJ OpEd - now there's an unbiased source. ###
> A quick search finds estimated cost in the Economist according to your
> CBO is cited as $848 billion.
You conveniently edited the sentence you took that number from -
here's the complete sentence:
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the bill would
cost $848 billion, less than the $1 trillion price-tag it attached to
the House bill, and would yield a net reduction to the federal deficit
of $130 billion between 2010 and 2019."
Get that? The CBO says it the bill would "yield a net reduction to
the federal deficit of $130 billion between 2010 and 2019."
> In the same article:
> Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the CBO and an adviser to
> John McCain, told Congress recently that every “budget gimmick” in the
> book is being used to dampen the estimated fiscal damage: “leave out
> inconvenient spending, back-load spending to disguise the true scale,
> front-load taxes, let inflation push up tax revenues, promise spending
> cuts that have never materialised…the list goes on.”
John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign economic adviser - now
there's another unbiased source. ###
Jim's correct that one has valid reason to be skeptical of the bill's
budget estimates - that applies to high estimates as well as low
estimates.
Ray
> Ray <rayb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 23, 1:12 pm, DG <nos...@nospam.nospammmm> wrote:
> >> Ray wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 23, 11:11 am, DG <nos...@nospam.nospammmm> wrote:
> >> >> Ray <rayb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >the CBO says the bill will *reduce* the federal deficit
> >> >> >by over $100 billion:
>
> >> >> I have a bridge to sell you. The bill is estimated to cost 1 to 1.6
> >> >> trillion
>
> >> >I cited to CBO. Who or what is your source?
>
> >> I don't remember off hand. I read the WSJ, Bloomberg and The
> >> Economist...
>
> >Lemme guess: the WSJ OpEd - now there's an unbiased source. ###
>
> >> A quick search finds estimated cost in the Economist according to your
> >> CBO is cited as $848 billion.
>
> >You conveniently edited the sentence you took that number from -
> >here's the complete sentence:
>
> >"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the bill would
> >cost $848 billion, less than the $1 trillion price-tag it attached to
> >the House bill, and would yield a net reduction to the federal deficit
> >of $130 billion between 2010 and 2019."
>
> >Get that? The CBO says it the bill would "yield a net reduction to
> >the federal deficit of $130 billion between 2010 and 2019."
>
Nice blatant misinterpretation of what I said again.
> Again, you
> believeing that the government is going to contain costs is
> nonsensical.
Did I say that either? Nope.
Funny though how you didn't have this level of skepticism when you
were so gung ho about us invading Iraq.
> >John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign economic adviser - now
> >there's another unbiased source. ###
>
> Got any other sources that disagree with your numbers that are
> "unbiased"? Or do you just stick with one number and not move in any
> direction...
I don't know about you, but Ill take the CBO's estimate over the WSJ
OpEd or McCain's 2008 presidential campaign economic adviser any day.
> >Jim's correct that one has valid reason to be skeptical of the bill's
> >budget estimates - that applies to high estimates as well as low
> >estimates.
>
> Yet you won't accept any other numbers...
You really should learn how to read.
Ray
> Ray wrote:
>
> >Funny though how you didn't have this level of skepticism when you
> >were so gung ho about us invading Iraq.
>
> shape.
Yeah, *that* would have gone over so well with respect to winning the
so-called "war on terror," wouldn't it have. ###
Ray
> made $1 billion in a day, says we are bankrupt. How do we "win" with
> a bankrupt treasury?
Good question. Remember it was you, not me, who was such a rah rah
with respect to invading Iraq.
Joe
> Now that's the Joe I know... On/off, black/white, up/down...
After you've met me, you can validly say "that's the Joe I know."
Joe
Joe
> You're right, Joe. So is Kirk. So is Ken.
> And mostly so is Don. I think it might be easier
> for me to just say who it is I *don"t* agree with.
> I will call the clinic and will look further into
> the state-run health options.
It's not a matter of being right or wrong in an rmgd pissing contest; it's
about life and death, and the fact that no one is going to look out for
your self interests as well as you are. And, pardon me, but it doesn't
sound like you're doing such a great job in that department.
I know absolulely nothing about health care in Alabama, or for that
matter, what it takes to get free or low cost health care in California,
but if your condition is anywhere near as dire as you make it sound, and
as easy as you imply it would be to get free halth care in California, if
I were you, I'd be on the first plane back here, and at the MediCal office
the very next day.
A couple of years ago, a friend called me, pleading with me to pick him up
and take him to the Marin General Hospital Emergency Room. He was in
excruciating pain from a kidney stone, but he didn't know that was the
cause at the time. All he knew is that he felt like he was dying. Needless
to say, I was there for a few hours, waiting. But, it didn't take long for
me to spot some type of huge poster hanging on the wall, describing some
type of "Patient's Bill Of Rights." It went on and on about how a hospital
emergency room cannot turn anyone away who showed up there seeking
treatment.
Again, my post wasn't about drama or about rmgd and its endless flame
fests. If you have what you think is a potentially life-threatening
condition, do something more for yourself than what you're currently
doing. Unless, of coure, you've seriously taken on Carrie's Drama Queen of
RMGD Crown and wear it with pride, in which case, there's no hope.
Do whatever it takes!
No private e-mail response is necessary. My unsolicited medical advice
applies to everyone.
Joe
Joe
> Good point, and one that is masked by the use of the term "health
> care". Here in France, it's a kind of hybrid. While the government runs
> hospitals, doctors - when they don't work in hospitals - are on their
> own. The government has control over drug prices, by negotiating with
> drug companies (and drugs cost, on average, about 1/5 what they do in
> the US), but pharmacies are privately run. So it's a combination of
> insurance and care.
That's almost exactly what my British friend said, and he sounded quite
happy by his government taking care of him, rather than the other way
around. And, in his tiny village, it was a 5 miunte walk to the doctor's
office, and probably a 3 minute walk to the pharmacy. None of this hiking
through the cold wind and rain for hours and hours, only to face a death
squad. He thinks Americans are insane, and as you already know, so do I.
And, my gawd. The Brits sure looked a whole lot healthier than their
American counterparts. The only obese person I saw was American.
In my friend's case, it wasn't even anything to really think about; it was
a good thing for everyone, all the way around.
With it costing over $100 to fill up his gas tank, he was much more
excited about his free bus pass.
Imagine that? Elected officials actually taking care of their
constituents. What's the world coming to?
Joe
Ray
> last week that you quoted numerous times.
You also neglect to mention that the author of those sentences made
confusing and contradictory statements in that thread that engendered
said confusion.
Your rah rah statements about invading Iraq were not at all
contradictory, however, even if your judgment was shall we say less
than perfect. You spent ***years*** being a hawk for a war that has
resulted in, at minimum, the death of tens of thousands of innocent
people and probably much more, as well as costing this country a
minimum of a trillion dollars and probably much more, and taking our
ball off of going after the people who attacked us on 9/11.
Way to go with your budget and national security judgments, DG.
Ray
> Ray wrote:
>
> >You also neglect to mention that the author of those sentences made
> >confusing and contradictory statements in that thread that engendered
> >said confusion.
>
> got it...
>
> You swung at three out of the zone pitches and struck out.
>
> You're out!
I was wrong about you trolling on that thread, but you are definitely
trolling now as you are so often wont to do. Troll on, DG, and again
way to go with your budget and national security judgments with
respect to your years long gung ho, so, so macho armchair chicken hawk
stance re- the invasion of Iraq.
Obviously, no one understands our national budget and security
priorities better than you.
Joe
> That's the Joe I know, spinning off at the drop of a hat.
Is there anyone here that you don't pick fights with?
Nah. I didn't think so.
Joe
Ray
> You went from Monsanto is an evil company
> to roundup is wonderful. Is it wrong for me to notice and make note
> of it?
Joe now thinks "roundup is wonderful"?!?
JimK
wrote:
>Ray wrote:
>>
>>On Nov 23, 11:11�am, DG <nos...@nospam.nospammmm> wrote:
>>> Ray <rayb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >the CBO says the bill will *reduce* the federal deficit
>>> >by over $100 billion:
>>>
>>> I have a bridge to sell you. �The bill is estimated to cost 1 to 1.6
>>> trillion
>>
>>I cited to CBO. Who or what is your source?
>
>
>I don't remember off hand. I read the WSJ, Bloomberg and The
>Economist...
>
>A quick search finds estimated cost in the Economist according to your
>CBO is cited as $848 billion.
>
>In the same article:
>Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the CBO and an adviser to
>John McCain, told Congress recently that every �budget gimmick� in the
>book is being used to dampen the estimated fiscal damage: �leave out
>inconvenient spending, back-load spending to disguise the true scale,
>front-load taxes, let inflation push up tax revenues, promise spending
>cuts that have never materialised�the list goes on.�
>
>http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14949864&source=features_box_main
>
>
>>> >Nice change of subject - gee, what a surprise.
>>>
>>> It's actually intimately involved with health care. �How do you pay
>>> for it?
>>
>>How does one pay for anything the govt does?
>
>
>
>According to legendary investor Marc Faber, some say "in 7 years 30%
>of our tax revenue will be used to pay interest on our debt". Mr
>Faber believes it will be "in 5 years 50% of our tax revenue will be
>used to pay interest on our debt"
>
>We cannot afford to give 40+ million people free health care.
>
<snip>
Who told you that the bill would result in 40+ million people getting
free health care? Are you sure you're not a Republican?
JimK
Joe
> You went from Monsanto is an evil company to roundup is wonderful. Is
> it wrong for me to notice and make note of it?
I don't know about wrong for you to notice, but it's a far cry from what I
did go on record as saying. After all, you can only be refering to one
thing, an opinion piece I wrote for my local newspaper in which I stated,
"Monsanto is the most evil corporation on the planet." And that's an exact
quote.
So, maybe you're just running off half-cocked, and yes, I find it
offensive when others try to speak for me. I'm quite capable of speaking
for myself.
But, after getting the reaction I did when I posted some URLs from a
newscast I was on a few months back, you can bet yer ass that I'm not
posting anything about the several articles that appeared in my local
newspaper which certainly proclaimed me as an environmentist. I don't need
ridicule from an rmgd flame fester. I'd rather have the President of the
local Sierra Club come up to me, shake my hand, and thank for all I've
done in the past few years to help promote native vegetation, and he did
that just last week.
Or, to word that another way, "Joe to self, haven't you learned your
fucking lesson yet with rmgd?" Apparently not.
> Anyway Joe... I'm glad you are back and wish you well...
Hmmm. I wonder why that reminds me of an of old Native American cliche
quote about pale faces with forked tongues?
> Embrace the chaos and most of all, ENJOY!
I'm not going to ever enjoy someone misreprenting me, and I'm certainly
not enjoying what rmgd has turned into in the last 2 years.
You;re all still on probation, but in all honesty, I wouldn't bet a cent
on my longevity here on rmgd. In the meanwhile I just have to debate why I
just spent 15 minutes of my life responding to this.
Joe
ML
> ML <mary.egret1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You're right, Joe. So is Kirk. So is Ken.
> > And mostly so is Don. I think it might be easier
> > for me to just say who it is I *don"t* agree with.
> > I will call the clinic and will look further into
> > the state-run health options.
>
> It's not a matter of being right or wrong in an rmgd pissing contest; it's
> about life and death, and the fact that no one is going to look out for
> your self interests as well as you are. And, pardon me, but it doesn't
> sound like you're doing such a great job in that department.
Pardon me, but you have real serious issues, Joe, and going
at me like this just proves that without any doubt.
You don't know about my life and situation, and I would never presume
to speak like that of yours.
>
> I know absolulely nothing about health care in Alabama, or for that
> matter, what it takes to get free or low cost health care in California,
> but if your condition is anywhere near as dire as you make it sound, and
> as easy as you imply it would be to get free halth care in California, if
> I were you, I'd be on the first plane back here, and at the MediCal office
> the very next day.
Crap. I was clearly stating the differences between CA and where I
happen
to live. There *is* more available in CA whether you know about it or
not.
I was not whining, Joe. I have dealt with things and was stating
facts for
this discussion. It is funny that the fact that I agreed with you
upset you so much that you felt a need to rant on me, for Godsakes.
I have been mellow and kept my emotions about you out of *all* you
have
posted since gracing RMGD with your return.
>
> A couple of years ago, a friend called me, pleading with me to pick him up
> and take him to the Marin General Hospital Emergency Room. He was in
> excruciating pain from a kidney stone, but he didn't know that was the
> cause at the time. All he knew is that he felt like he was dying. Needless
> to say, I was there for a few hours, waiting. But, it didn't take long for
> me to spot some type of huge poster hanging on the wall, describing some
> type of "Patient's Bill Of Rights." It went on and on about how a hospital
> emergency room cannot turn anyone away who showed up there seeking
> treatment.
And they also bill you. Me, I don't assume I can blow off a bill I
can't pay.
The fact that I haven't the money would keep me away unless it was
life-threatening. Thankfully I have not needed to do that yet.
What *is* your fucking problem?
>
> Again, my post wasn't about drama or about rmgd and its endless flame
> fests. If you have what you think is a potentially life-threatening
> condition, do something more for yourself than what you're currently
> doing. Unless, of coure, you've seriously taken on Carrie's Drama Queen of
> RMGD Crown and wear it with pride, in which case, there's no hope.
Hey, when it comes to drama, you have it way over me, sir.
I'll leave it at that.
>
> Do whatever it takes!
>
> No private e-mail response is necessary. My unsolicited medical advice
> applies to everyone.
>
> Joe
I feel very sorry for you, man.
k sturm
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:05:16 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
>
>
>
> <kennethfortenbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Ray wrote:
> >> Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
> >>> I have lost friends
> >>> to the death panels of the current health care scheme.
>
> >> Edwin: with respect to "death panels" are you being sarcastic or
> >> serious here? I can't tell if you believe they are real or not;
> >> they're not real.
>
> >Oh, they're real all right. When I was first diagnosed I did
> >my due diligence with Google and discovered the best expert
> >in the field was at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.
> >I asked my doctor here to make the referral and he did but the
> >death panel at my insurance company said Mayo was "out of network"
> >and wouldn't cover the office visit. I paid for it myself.
>
> >When I saw the doctor at Mayo he recommended a course of therapy
> >that has been standard in Europe for the last five years. The
> >death panel at my insurance company wouldn't pay for it because
> >it was "experimental". I paid for it myself.
>
> >I have gold-plated, super-duper, A#1 American health insurance
> >through the University of Illinois but if I hadn't been able to
> >get my hands on a quarter of a million dollars real quick (over
> >the course of three years), I wouldn't be sitting here typing
> >this.
>
> >They're real all right, don't you ever doubt it.
>
> Your story raises one of the issues that presents a real dilemma with
> our health care system, or any other health system, I suppose.
> Obviously, we'd all like to see the very best doctors and be treated
> at the very best hospitals. But just as obviously, not everyone can.
> Those doctors and hospitals have limited capacity and can only see so
> many patients, and they're usually the most expensive. So the dilemma
> is how to decide who gets to see the good doctors and who gets stuck
> seeing the bad ones.
>
> JimK
But that isn't ALL they do. Remember a couple years ago when Zack had
his chest surgery? Anthem insisted that they didn't have to pay
because it was a "pre-existing condition." Zack's dad had been laid
off from his job at Lucent and finally got a new job in November. At
the new job, one can only apply for insurance in January and you have
to have been working there for six months before you're eligible to
apply. That's fourteen months of waiting. The waiting period for pre-
existing conditions is twelve months. The HIPPA law says that if you
have to wait to apply and there's a pre-existing clause, both time
periods must run concurrently. It took a week of phone calls and
arguing and finally me literally SCREAMING at the supervisor of the
supervisor of the supervisor, 'what the fuck happens to people who are
old or too dumb or too sick to do research and don't know what the law
says?' Their FIRST course of action is to deny and if you don't have
the information and know exactly what your rights are, they'll screw
you. That's how they make their money and the CEO of UHC makes a
thousand dollars a minute - by taking your premiums and then denying
you the care your doctor says you need.
Like I've been saying for years, the only answer is something like
H.R. 676, Medicare for all. Insurance companies are there to make
money, not to give healthcare.
Edwin Hurwitz
<d1878833-1fce-461c...@z35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Ray <ray...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 12:13�pm, Edwin Hurwitz <ed...@indra.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0ae092f9-6410-49d7-8101-641ed0b12...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �Ray <rayb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 22, 12:14�pm, Edwin Hurwitz <ed...@indra.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > I have lost friends
> > > > to the death panels of the current health care scheme.
> >
> > > Edwin: with respect to "death panels" are you being sarcastic or
> > > serious here? �I can't tell if you believe they are real or not;
> > > they're not real.
> >
> > Well, a good friend of mine, Jane, whose last name I'll leave out for
> > privacy issues, contracted breast cancer. Her insurance company paid for
> > one bout of chemo and then decided that everything else was too
> > expensive and cancelled her policy. She couldn't afford other treatment,
> > she died. If that's not a death panel, I don't know what is. They
> > decided that keeping her money from her premiums which she had paid for
> > 30 or so years, was more important than doing what they could to cure
> > her disease. Her doctors thought she had a good shot at surviving, but
> > if she couldn't afford the treatment, she could get better. It sucks to
> > this day.
>
> Yeah as I had indicated above I was referring to the "death panel"
> scare mongering with respect to the health bill - there is no
> provision in the bill that ads any "death panels" to the system that
> don't already exist. My take is that a government run health
> insurance system, implemented correctly, would be better in that
> regard than what we've got now and help reform the private sector in
> that regard - we seem to be on the same page there.
>
> And although my read here is that it was a while ago now, my
> condolences for the loss of your friend.
Thanks. She was awesome! A wonderful T'ai Chi teacher and she hung out
with the beat poet scene in New York and moved to Boulder to help start
Naropa with the likes of Ginsburg, et al.
Edwin
--
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your
enemies.
-Moshe Dayan
Edwin Hurwitz
DG <nos...@nospam.nospammmm> wrote:
> Joe wrote:
> >
> >It's unbelievable to me that there's a debate of any kind going on. It's
> >as simple as life vs death, in my eyes. Profitable medicine = death;
> >government sponsored/administered health care = health.
>
>
> Now that's the Joe I know... On/off, black/white, up/down...
In this case, he does have a point.
Edwin Hurwitz
JimK <jkez...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:05:16 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
> <kennethfo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Ray wrote:
> >> Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
> >>> I have lost friends
> >>> to the death panels of the current health care scheme.
> >>
> >> Edwin: with respect to "death panels" are you being sarcastic or
> >> serious here? I can't tell if you believe they are real or not;
> >> they're not real.
> >
Or none at all. I think that's more to the point.
Edwin Hurwitz
JimK <jkez...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:00:24 -0500, DG <nos...@nospam.nospammmm>
> wrote:
> >
> >>After all, whoever is paying for the medical care should have some say
> >>in the matter; the issue that needs to be resolved is to what degree.
> >>If you don't want anyone to come between you and your doctor, you
> >>always have the option of paying for your medical care out of your own
> >>pocket. Then you could see any doctor and have any care you could
> >>afford. Of course, that probably wouldn't be much.
> >
> >
> >
> >I see whatever doctor I want. If they don't want to pay then I do.
> >What am I paying them for?
>
> You seem to have totally missed the point, which is that it's crazy to
> think that if an insurance company is paying for your health care it's
> not going to have any say whatsoever about what it's paying for.
>
> JimK
I think you have missed the point. While seeing the best will always be
an issue, but as Mary's story shows, as well as countless other, it's a
question of getting any health care at all. And given that we all
ultimately pay for it, why shouldn't we all get at least good care?
JimK
wrote:
How have I missed the point? Do you think there's any form of health
insurance where the insurance provider won't have some say in how much
care it will pay for? Do you really think that people should be
entitled to any health care we want, regardless of the need or the
cost? And nowhere does what I said even remotely suggest that people
shouldn't be entitled to have their basic health care needs met at a
reasonable cost. I'm perfectly willing to accept the fact that we all
need to share that cost, but it's simply unrealistic to think, as some
do, that cost should never be a factor in deciding the level of health
care that should be provided. Do you disagree with these points?
JimK
JimK
wrote:
>In article <g8plg51q07alfr2bt...@4ax.com>,
Like I said, Ken's story raises one of the issues facing our health
care system, and that's the one I was talking about. I never said
there weren't other issues, and making sure that everyone gets at
least a basic level of care is certainly the most important one.
JimK
JimK
My advice would be to save your pity for someone more deserving.
JimK