"If you voted for Obama … seek urologic care elsewhere."
safire
treat people like Steve Jordan, who refers to the President of the
United States as "Oboomwah" and therefore must be considered a racist.
The sign on his door says: "If you voted for Obama … seek urologic care
elsewhere."
Claude
"safire" <saf...@tele-net.com> wrote in message
news:hp9fno$vid$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I don't know why you have such a hostile attitude. It doesnt contribute
anything to this forum. As I've commented about the right wing posts,
political commentary has no place in a cancer support forum. If this keeps
up I will have to killfile you. I don't like doing that to anyone except
passing trolls.
Alan Meyer
safire,
I sympathize with your criticism of the term "Oboomwah". I think
it's disrespectful to our President and detracts from rather than
adds to, political discussion. I also sympathize with your
criticism of the Florida urologist. Even if I were a Republican
I would think twice about allowing myself to be treated by a
doctor who exhibits such poor judgment.
But I don't think your personal attack on Steve J is justified.
Using a disrespectful term is not the same thing as racism. I
am personally deeply opposed to racism, but I believe we have to
be extremely careful about who we call a racist and why. I think
that President Obama himself would be very careful and would
never use the term lightly.
I think it is unjust to call Steve a racist on the basis of his
use of that term. I think it is counter-productive to the
political positions that you and I probably share to make
personal attacks on people who disagree with us. You won't win
any arguments or convince anyone to support your point of view in
that way.
I also think it harms your own standing in the group when you
make personal attacks on others, and I believe that it is
damaging to the newsgroup as a whole when people engage in
personal attacks.
You have some useful things to say about prostate cancer. Your
point of view on the issues is valuable. You bring out some
interesting facts. I learned a lot, for example, from your
posting about the statistical realities of screening tests when
the number of false positives is likely to swamp the number of
true ones.
But because of your frequent personal attacks, you turn people
away from you and cause people to ignore you when you have
something valuable to say. You're aiming at Steve or I.P. or
some other person, but you're not hitting them, you're actually
just shooting yourself in the foot.
I urge you to reconsider your approach to the group.
Alan
I.P. Freely
> safire wrote:
> > The sign on his door says: "If you
> > voted for Obama … seek urologic care elsewhere."
> Even if I were a Republican
> I would think twice about allowing myself to be treated by a
> doctor who exhibits such poor judgment.
I agree with the rest of your post, Alan, but it's not clear to me how
the doctor is off base in any way. He simply concurs with hundreds of
thousands of physicians who are completely convinced that Obamacare will
very gravely harm the U.S. health care system -- including medical
research, patient care, physician motivation and every other aspect of
medical care one can name, especially for seniors -- and ultimately the
economy as it significantly degrades the already wounded job market. I'd
say the doctor is making a valid contribution to public awareness of the
harm this bill will do according even to the CBO, and according even
more so to the previous CBO, who is not obliged to accept known false
premises as is any current CBO.
I've heard small business leaders discuss who they will fire first when
Obamacare fees, fines, taxes, and regulations force layoffs. Several of
them said they may start with any employee who has an Obama/Biden bumper
sticker.
After all, the primary lessons of Obamacare include:
• Don't grow old. Your care will diminish significantly, including
extended care rationing.
• Don't grow your small business. Past 50 employees your costs will
skyrocket.
• Public opinion even to the 80% level can and may be rejected by this
administration.
• Work less, produce less, and earn less, and ye shall be rewarded.
(This is called negative feedback in systems engineering, and it
resembles pouring cold molasses into a Swiss watch.)
• Work more, earn more, and earn more, and even if ye provide thousands
of jobs and enrich the world, ye shall be ostracized, demonized, and
fiscally punished (more cold molasses).
I.P.
Alan Meyer
...
> I agree with the rest of your post, Alan, but it's not clear to
> me how the doctor is off base in any way. He simply concurs
> with hundreds of thousands of physicians who are completely
> convinced that Obamacare will very gravely harm the U.S. health
> care system -- including medical research, patient care,
> physician motivation and every other aspect of medical care one
> can name, especially for seniors -- and ultimately the economy
> as it significantly degrades the already wounded job market.
> I'd say the doctor is making a valid contribution to public
> awareness of the harm this bill will do according even to the
> CBO, and according even more so to the previous CBO, who is not
> obliged to accept known false premises as is any current CBO.
The doctor hasn't just made a political statement. He could do
that without telling patients who voted for Obama to look
elsewhere for treatment.
Should a teacher refuse to teach the children of people whose
politics they disagree with?
Should a phone company, an Internet provider, a car dealer, a
restaurant, a grocery store, an insurance agent, a clothing shop,
a gas station, an electrician, or a package delivery service
refuse to do business with people they disagree with?
Do we have to have separate supermarkets for Democrats and
Republicans? Do we need separate supermarkets for Romney
Republicans and Palin Republicans?
When a man joins this newsgroup and says that he has prostate
cancer and asks a question, neither you nor I ask him to tell us
about his political position before we give him advice. I think
we'd be pretty sorry human beings if we did.
The doctor told the TV reporter that he won't turn anyone away.
He no doubt had to say that to keep from being immediately
reprimanded by the legal authorities and professional
associations. But his sign sure does turn people away. If I
were a patient of his I'd not only be afraid of his poor
judgment, I'd be afraid he would do something deleterious to my
health just to spite me for being a Democrat.
I think what he did is unprofessional and immoral.
> I've heard small business leaders discuss who they will fire
> first when Obamacare fees, fines, taxes, and regulations force
> layoffs. Several of them said they may start with any employee
> who has an Obama/Biden bumper sticker.
I think that's wrong and immoral too. If a person does good work
she shouldn't be laid off because of her politics any more than
for her race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, music
preferences, sports teams, or anything else that has nothing to
do with her job. An employer is a real jerk if he lays off an
employee who has worked hard for him and done a good job just
because the guy is a Republican or a Democrat, or whatever.
> After all, the primary lessons of Obamacare include: ...
I think we can agree to disagree about that for now. I think
that, even if your points were true, and I don't think they are,
they don't justify a doctor turning away patients because they
voted for Obama.
Alan
He'sDeadJim
I.P. never passes up a post where he can regurgitate the stale Fox
News talking points. It's time to just see what really happens.
BTW Below is a fascinating short interview with this doctor. Who is
also a proud graduate of a Grenada medical school. You know those
carribbean diploma mills where you receive a barely adequate medical
education. Hey how about it IP you can go to thjis guy who's your
medical soul mate.
http://www.alan.com/2010/04/03/doctor-against-treating-obama-supporters-admits-not-knowing-whats-in-health-reform-bill/
I.P. Freely
> I.P. Freely wrote:
> ...
> > I agree with the rest of your post, Alan, but it's not clear to
> > me how the doctor is off base in any way. He simply concurs
> > with hundreds of thousands of physicians who are completely
> > convinced that Obamacare will very gravely harm the U.S. health
> > care system -- including medical research, patient care,
> > physician motivation and every other aspect of medical care one
> > can name, especially for seniors -- and ultimately the economy
> > as it significantly degrades the already wounded job market.
> > I'd say the doctor is making a valid contribution to public
> > awareness of the harm this bill will do according even to the
> > CBO, and according even more so to the previous CBO, who is not
> > obliged to accept known false premises as is any current CBO.
>
> The doctor hasn't just made a political statement. He could do
> that without telling patients who voted for Obama to look
> elsewhere for treatment.
It's his product, his practice, his medical conscience, his employees'
jobs, and his workload at stake. The threat to all of those began with
Obama's election. He has every legal and moral right to refuse to accept
Medicare pts -- as hundreds of thousands of physicians are already
beginning and threatening to do -- so who's to say he's out of line
advising those who put him in this mess to patronize another doctor?
> Should a teacher, a phone company, an Internet provider, a car dealer, a
> restaurant, a grocery store, an insurance agent, a clothing shop,
> a gas station, an electrician, or a package delivery service
> refuse to do business with people they disagree with?
If the actions of those customers directly threaten those businessmens'
livelihoods and degrades the services they proudly provide ... do you
have a better place to start when layoffs are a direct and forewarned
result of their actions?
>
> Do we have to have separate supermarkets for Democrats and
> Republicans?
We already have scores of thousands of separate physicians, with
hundreds of thousands more quite possible -- for Medicare vs
non-Medicare pts.
> When a man joins this newsgroup and says that he has prostate
> cancer and asks a question, neither you nor I ask him to tell us
> about his political position before we give him advice. I think
> we'd be pretty sorry human beings if we did.
This is not our livelihood, and his politics do/did not degrade the
quality (or value) of our services.
> The doctor told the TV reporter that he won't turn anyone away.
> He no doubt had to say that to keep from being immediately
> reprimanded by the legal authorities and professional
> associations.
He -- and his scores of thousands of like-minded compatriots -- are not
reprimanded now for refusing to accept Medicare, Medicaid, or any other
federal government health care insurance.
> But his sign sure does turn people away.
I suspect it was meant to. Why would he want to work for peanuts, as
government insurance dictates?
> If I
> were a patient of his I'd not only be afraid of his poor
> judgment, I'd be afraid he would do something deleterious to my
> health just to spite me for being a Democrat.
That ... or he is a highly informed and pragmatic professional who bases
his career according to medical facts rather than personal feelings.
> I think what he did is unprofessional and immoral.
It's his career, not his patients', just like a corporation which
relocates *it's* jobs offshore.
> > I've heard small business leaders discuss who they will fire
> > first when Obamacare fees, fines, taxes, and regulations force
> > layoffs. Several of them said they may start with any employee
> > who has an Obama/Biden bumper sticker.
>
> I think that's wrong and immoral too.
> If a person does good work
> she shouldn't be laid off because of her politics any more than
> for her race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, music
> preferences, sports teams, or anything else that has nothing to
> do with her job. An employer is a real jerk if he lays off an
> employee who has worked hard for him and done a good job just
> because the guy is a Republican or a Democrat, or whatever.
A. Why is it wrong or immoral to lay off first the employees known to
have contributed directly and knowingly to the necessity to lay people
off? (The business owner would probably know whether the necessity that
he fire people or even close his business was due to administration
policies.) There are consequences to our actions.
B. It's the owner's company and his jobs, not the employees'. It's his
call whom to fire.
C. We choose our politics and sports teams. We do not choose race,
gender, or (IMO) sexual orientation.
> > After all, the primary lessons of Obamacare include: ...
>
> I think we can agree to disagree about that for now. I think
> that, even if your points were true, and I don't think they are,
What you believe about cold, hard, proven, publicly stated, *federally
legislated* facts -- these points are part, parcel, and the very crux of
this bill -- is not relevant and does not change those facts. We don't
get to ignore or alter facts just because they oppose our ideology.
MZB
Oh give me a break.
I guess we need doctors with signs: "If you did not vote for Obama, seek
care elsewhere."
I am a University Math Prof. I think I'll put out a sign: "If you did not
vote for Obama, take someone else's class."
This is utter stupidity.
Mel
"I.P. Freely" <fuhghed...@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:pk8un.93085$mn6....@newsfe07.iad...
I.P. Freely
> I guess we need doctors with signs: "If you did not vote for Obama, seek
> care elsewhere."
>
> I am a University Math Prof. I think I'll put out a sign: "If you did not
> vote for Obama, take someone else's class."
>
> This is utter stupidity.
• It's a free country. A doctor in his own private clinic can choose
whom he *wishes* to sell his wares to.
• How has the current administration harmed your livelihood?
• How often have you called the physicians who refuse to accept
Medicare, "stupid"? Why is that not a sound business model?
• Just as I'm suspicious of anyone trying to sell me a Rolex for $25, I
look a little more closely at a doctor who accepts Medicare. Is he
altruistic, or just hungry for business?
• How eager are you to earn less than your business expenses?
• If you were a private tutor, you could choose to reject Whigs or
smokers or people with tattoos. Since you're merely an employee, you
haven't the power to make corporate (university) policy.
I.P.
I.P. Freely
"We reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone."
Is it fair to reserve one's outrage until it hits close to home?
I.P.
safire
> We've seen the sign in a hundred establishments:
> "We reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone."
Those establishments aren't bound by the hippocratric oath. The doctor
is. Those establishments aren't bound by section 10.01 (Fundamental
Elements of the Patient-Physician Relationship) of the AMA Code of
Medical Ethics. The doctor is.
> Is it fair to reserve one's outrage until it hits close to home?
The right to refuse service must be based on a reasonable standard. A
political conviction is not a reasonable standard.
>
> I.P.
Rick
Yes!
If the Dr accepts Medicare/Meciaid payments his trouble for
discriminating on any grounds but his/her own safety should
net him some sizable fines!
Tom Cular
health care bill, neither wished to get into a political discussion with a
patient. My youngest daughter; an M.D., stated that with every new
submission of the proposed bill, they've added something that has nothing to
do with health care just to tack on their favorite expenditures or projects.
That applies to both major parties!
Tom
"Rick" <rick0....@gmail.com.lessspam> wrote in message
news:hpfh7n$dm4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I.P. Freely
>
> "Rick" wrote
>> safire wrote:
>>> I.P. Freely wrote:
>>>> We've seen the sign in a hundred establishments:
>>>> "We reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone."
>>>
>>> Those establishments aren't bound by the hippocratric oath. The doctor
>>> is. Those establishments aren't bound by section 10.01 (Fundamental
>>> Elements of the Patient-Physician Relationship) of the AMA Code of
>>> Medical Ethics. The doctor is.
Yup. But neither the Hippocratic oath nor the AMA Code requires any
particular physician to treat any particular patient. If it did, no
physician could refuse to accept Medicare/Medicaid, because that would
in effect refuse his treatment to those patients. Relative to this
thread, the oath and the code vaguely oblige doctors in general to see
that the sick get treated. The physician in this thread simply said, "Go
see another uro". The oath and code oblige THIS doctor only if he's the
last surviving doctor available, and only if it's not his tee time.
>>> The right to refuse service must be based on a reasonable standard. A
>>> political conviction is not a reasonable standard.
It could be -- and, I'll bet, WILL be -- argued in some court that it is
reasonable to re-direct a pt who knowingly contributed to the doctor's
business failure and layoffs of his employees.
>> If the Dr accepts Medicare/Meciaid payments his trouble for
>> discriminating on any grounds but his/her own safety should
>> net him some sizable fines!
Under what statute? ERs refuse pts all the time, and not just because
they're swamped.
I.P.
Steve Kramer
news:hpg9m2$ktr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>I recently asked , both my PCP and Uro for their opinions of the proposed
>health care bill, neither wished to get into a political discussion with a
>patient. My youngest daughter; an M.D., stated that with every new
>submission of the proposed bill, they've added something that has nothing
>to do with health care just to tack on their favorite expenditures or
>projects. That applies to both major parties!
If extended into the past a couple of years, I would concur with all of your
daughter's points.
Info
"I.P. Freely" <fuhghed...@noway.nohow> wrote in message
> MZB wrote:
>
>> I guess we need doctors with signs: "If you did not vote for Obama, seek
>> care elsewhere."
>>
>> I am a University Math Prof. I think I'll put out a sign: "If you did not
>> vote for Obama, take someone else's class."
>>
>> This is utter stupidity.
>
> • It's a free country. A doctor in his own private clinic can choose whom
> he *wishes* to sell his wares to.
From the article at the link you posted, the doctor said,
"I'm not turning anybody away — that would be unethical," Dr. Jack Cassell,
56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health
plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. "But if they read the sign and
turn the other way, so be it."
The depth of people's feelings about the new healthcare plans is leading to
them away from the path of moderation and common sense.
For what it's worth, I don't like this healthcare bill.
Info
"I.P. Freely" <fuhghed...@noway.nohow> wrote in message
> Tom Cular wrote:
>>
>> "Rick" wrote
>>> safire wrote:
>>>> I.P. Freely wrote:
>>>>> We've seen the sign in a hundred establishments:
>>>>> "We reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone."
>>>>
>>>> Those establishments aren't bound by the hippocratric oath. The doctor
>>>> is. Those establishments aren't bound by section 10.01 (Fundamental
>>>> Elements of the Patient-Physician Relationship) of the AMA Code of
>>>> Medical Ethics. The doctor is.
>
> Yup. But neither the Hippocratic oath nor the AMA Code requires any
> particular physician to treat any particular patient. If it did, no
> physician could refuse to accept Medicare/Medicaid, because that would in
> effect refuse his treatment to those patients. Relative to this thread,
> the oath and the code vaguely oblige doctors in general to see that the
> sick get treated. The physician in this thread simply said, "Go see
> another uro". The oath and code oblige THIS doctor only if he's the last
> surviving doctor available, and only if it's not his tee time.
See my response to previous post. The doctor expressly said,
"I'm not turning anybody away — that would be unethical," Dr. Jack Cassell,
56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health
plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. "But if they read the sign and
turn the other way, so be it."
>
I.P. Freely
> The depth of people's feelings about the new healthcare plans is leading
> to them away from the path of moderation and common sense.
Conversely, I'd say moderation and common sense (plus emerging facts)
are leading people away from the new healthcare plan.
I.P.
Magnus
If the U.S. healthcare plan was credible, there would be no need to make it
mandatory, and bring the power of the IRS down on those who resist.
Or... you can run for Congress and, if elected, avoid the plan altogether.
That in itself speaks volumes.
Alan Meyer
> The depth of people's feelings about the new healthcare plans is leading
> to them away from the path of moderation and common sense.
I think that's very well put.
Even if I believed everything that I.P. and the urologist in question
believe about the new health insurance reforms, and of course I don't, I
could not justify what the doctor did. It is mean spirited, selfish,
and defies common sense.
Alan
I.P. Freely
>
> Even if I believed everything that I.P. and the urologist in question
> believe about the new health insurance reforms, and of course I don't
Of course you don't. You very obviously rely on what you so desperately
*want* the bill to achieve, not on its very text and the actual numbers
from official sources. Sorry, Alan, but I think that's inexcusable on an
individual scale, outright dangerous on a large scale.
Alan Meyer
I don't see any choice for us but to agree to disagree about that.
Personally, I think that leaving health insurance in relatively
unregulated private hands (there was some regulation before the new
health law, but not enough) has been dangerous to both the health and
the economic welfare of the people of the U.S.
But still, knowing that you disagree with me, I would never refuse to
treat you if I were a doctor, or send you to someone else because I
don't agree with your politics. I would damn sure vote against you if
you ever ran for office in any jurisdiction where I could vote - unless
maybe Attila the Hun was running on the other side. But I wouldn't
refuse to serve you in any business that I ran - health related or
otherwise. Neither would I insult you or treat you as an enemy or a
person unworthy of respect or decent treatment.
The only good thing I see about this doctor in Florida is that he has
exposed the kind of human being he is and maybe a lot of prospective
patients, Republicans as well as Democrats, will choose to go elsewhere.
I don't know if the new insurance reforms will hurt him economically.
I don't expect to see him as a Walmart greeter somewhere. Walmart
greeters will probably benefit dramatically from this new law, but still
be far, far below the good doctor on the income scale.
Alan
gabachin
I'll weigh in: Alan's got it right. The doctor in question's mean-
spiritedness has no place in medicine. Interesting how the "religious
right" and the silly "don't tread on me" crowd contradict directly the
teachings of Jesus Christ. I'll drop a few bucks extra in tax to help
out the less-fortunate any day. And I expect my doctor to treat all
who require service, regardless of their political bent.
While I respect his struggle with PCa and his contributions on the
that subject, I think as far as his political rants go, IP should
save himself the trouble of paraphrasing and just post the transcripts
of Glenn Beck's program.
Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity will eventually go the way of Joe McCarthy.
Good riddance.
Steve Kramer
news:388f71a7-e5e8-4ac5...@z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> Since this group has evidently turned into a political forum,
It has not. There are still a few people who desire to foist on us
discussions of politics though the vast majority of us who would rather it
was not discussed here.
> IP should
> save himself the trouble of paraphrasing and just post the transcripts
> of Glenn Beck's program.
> Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity will eventually go the way of Joe McCarthy.
Back to the real world, Paul...
Last we heard, your PSA was rising but no PCa dx. That was a couple of
years ago. How have you been doing since?
--
skramer remarks
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD 0.56 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.40 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA undetectable since. Next Assay 10/10/10
Illegitimati non carborundum
Magnus
news:388f71a7-e5e8-4ac5...@z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> I'll weigh in: Alan's got it right. The doctor in question's mean-
> spiritedness has no place in medicine. Interesting how the "religious
> right" and the silly "don't tread on me" crowd contradict directly the
> teachings of Jesus Christ.
Could you cite a verse for that? I missed where Jesus advocated that the
Roman government threaten the lives of its citizens to make them "do good".
FL Doc has a right to earn a living (the Bible is quite clear on that). Why
should he pander to those who would take that away from him for their own
selfish benefit. It's sad to hear from all the whiners who feel they are
entitled to what someone else has (the Bible refers to that as coveting,
even theft).
Magnus
news:hpkfae$d6d$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "gabachin" <pto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:388f71a7-e5e8-4ac5...@z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Since this group has evidently turned into a political forum,
>
> It has not. There are still a few people who desire to foist on us
> discussions of politics though the vast majority of us who would rather it
> was not discussed here.
Actually it's known as life in community. Presumably many of you worked for
an employer at some time in your lives. Tell me, where your on-the-job
conversations only related to the work task. Did you never discuss the
weather, your family, the world around you...
Claude
"Magnus" <mag...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:rEmvn.35349$u62....@newsfe10.iad...
Not a good comparison. We usually spent 8 hours or so on the job. Most of
us had much more contact with co-workers and established relationships on
different levels. Conversations then devolved out of these relationships.
Many others had these kinds of discussions to divert them from a boring job
or boring tasks on the job. Still others had to endure comments they would
have liked to avoid because they needed the job, and the co-workers came
with it.
This is a voluntary association with a specific purpose. Most of us only
spend a very limited time here. We know very little about each other
(unfortunately too much about some participants' politics). I come
specifically---and I think most people who lurk or post here---to learn
about prostate cancer, get support, and, in turn, offer support to others
when we have something to offer. That's what this forum should be all
about. I am tempted to leave this group when people insert their political
or racial prejudices (eg. "Oboomwhacare") into discussions and thus divert
the forum from what it has been established for. I havent left because
there is still a lot of helpful information and, yes, support here. If the
political, racial, and social commentaries were to increase and be slung
about as freely as they are in many work places, I would see no reason to
remain here. I would go elsewhere for help on prostate cancer.
He'sDeadJim
You are 100% correct. The fact that a few here are determined to turn
what is supposed to be a cancer support newsgroup into a right wing
political newsgroup is really reprehensible. Yes I know they also
impart some PCa support but I think that is outweighed by how many
cancer victims and their SO's are driven away from here with their
continual non ending Fox news talking points. The fact the bill has
passed you'd think would allow sometime now to just see what happens
time will tell if it was good or OMG armageddon.
I'm no stranger to flame wars on usenet but they shouldn't be in a
cancer support group . The fact that I.P. is here instead of more
helpful web support sites is because they wouldn't put up with his
wingnut ramblingsl. Below is a much better support site than this can
ever be with the few regulars who stay here.
Steve Kramer
We do not in our US Too group. People who face each other in support groups
have better manners than do anonymous personas with fake addresses. Please
don't be offended. I am trying only to bring the apples analogy back to
apples.
Now as to the orange discussion, the work setting, I would say that we
discussed weather, family, current events, etc., but even there polite
people didn't discuss politics on the job. It will almost always cause an
inappropriate response or perception of a response.
Now, if we were in a political forum, I could give you all you could handle;
except that we might agree. I haven't been paying attention to your posts,
so I just don't know.
Steve Kramer
news:hpl28g$tci$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> This is a voluntary association with a specific purpose. Most of us only
> spend a very limited time here. We know very little about each other
> (unfortunately too much about some participants' politics). I come
> specifically---and I think most people who lurk or post here---to learn
> about prostate cancer, get support, and, in turn, offer support to others
> when we have something to offer. That's what this forum should be all
> about. I am tempted to leave this group when people insert their
> political or racial prejudices (eg. "Oboomwhacare") into discussions and
> thus divert the forum from what it has been established for. I havent
> left because there is still a lot of helpful information and, yes, support
> here. If the political, racial, and social commentaries were to increase
> and be slung about as freely as they are in many work places, I would see
> no reason to remain here. I would go elsewhere for help on prostate
> cancer.
Very well, and better than I, said.
I.P. Freely
"Steve Kramer" nobly wrote
> There are still a few people who desire to foist on us
> discussions of politics though the vast majority of us who would
> rather it was not discussed here.
Ironic, that Steve often waxes political.
Heresy, that several have stated their belief that federal health care
is relevant to cancer victims' ... uh ... health care, and thus to this
forum.
I.P.
I.P. Freely
>>> Even if I believed everything that I.P. and the urologist in question
>>> believe about the new health insurance reforms, and of course I don't
Yet you refuse to state which of the five facts I posted you disagree
with. Seems to me the way to agreement would be discussing specific
facts in dispute, rather than just saying mine are wrong.
I.P.
I.P. Freely
>
> This is a voluntary association with a specific purpose.
> specifically---and I think most people who lurk or post here---to learn
> about prostate cancer, get support, and, in turn, offer support to others
> when we have something to offer. That's what this forum should be all
> about.
You have repeatedly refused to tell us why you get to dictate which
aspects of our health care the rest of us are allowed to discuss here.
I.P.
QuiG...@webtv.net
http://healthcarefactcheck.com/
Action Center
1. Get the facts and share them with your friends.
http://www.dccc.org/page/invite/factcheck
2. Sign our Thank You card for Speaker Pelosi here.
http://www.dccc.org/page/s/sptycard
3. Become a fan of Democrats on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
http://www.facebook.com/electdemocrats?v=app_11007063052&ref=ts
Health Care Reform: Get the Facts
=
MYTH: House health insurance reform legislation will lead to
out-of-control deficit spending
FACT: The Affordable Health Care for America act contains several
cost-control measures, including rewarding quality instead of quantity
of care, payment bundling, reducing hospital readmissions, negotiating
drug prices, investing in prevention, cracking down on fraud, creating a
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation and promoting accountable
care organizations.
Health care reform will also cut the deficit by more than $100 billion
in the first ten years and $1 trillion in the second ten years. This
constitutes the biggest deficit reduction package in more than a decade.
=
MYTH: End-of-life provisions in House health insurance reform bill will
lead to "Death Panels"
FACT: The bill never requires anyone to discuss end-of-life care.
Nonpartisan Politifact.com calls the suggestion that the bill would
encourage anyone to end their lives sooner an "outright distortion."
=
MYTH: Health insurance reform plan will lead to cuts in Medicare
benefits and services
FACT: Nothing in the bill would cut basic Medicare benefits.
Instead, the bill strengthens Medicare by reducing inefficiency and
rooting out and eliminating waste and fraud.
In it's October newsletter, the AARP said of the House bill "the changes
actually aim to strengthen Medicare and improve beneficiaries' care and
access to physicians."
=
MYTH: Private Plans Outlawed
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) claimed on his website that individual
private health insurance plans will be outlawed in 2013 under the
Democratic health care plan.
PolitiFact.com: Private health insurance not banned In fact, PolitiFact
rates this myth so miseleading that it calls it "Pants on Fire."
Individual policies will continue to be available, but people will buy
those policies through the national health insurance exchange, which
will ensure that people with pre-existing conditions will be able to get
coverage.
The House bill also allows for existing policies to be grandfathered in,
so individual purchasers who like their coverage will be able to keep
it.
America's Affordable Health Choices Act
On Sunday, March 21st 2010, the House achieved a historic victory for
American families by passing the comprehensive health insurance reform.
Throughout the legislative process, House Democrats fought tirelessly to
bring real change to America by fixing our broken health care system.
Below are some critical reforms enacted by this landmark legislation:
Affordability
* Reduces cost by creating competitive health insurance exchanges where
consumers can small businesses can buy affordable coverage much like
large companies do today
* Creates tax credits and subsidies to help low and middle income
Americans afford quality care
* Closes the Medicare prescription "donut hole" by providing an initial
$250 rebate and then deep discounts on prescription drugs for Medicare
beneficiaries in the donut hole
* Extends the solvency of the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund by
at least nine years
Access
* Ends insurance company practice of discriminating and denying coverage
based on pre-existing conditions, health status or gender
* Increases access to care by investing in Community Health Centers
* Expands eligibility for Medicaid
* Eliminates copays for preventative Medicare benefits such as cancer
screenings and provides free yearly exams for Medicare beneficiaries
Accountability
* Gives Americans they tools and information they need to make informed
decisions about their health insurance coverage
* Reins in unwarranted, egregious premium increases by empowering the
Department of Health and Human Services and state insurance
commissioners to conduct thorough annual reviews
* Creates incentives for health care providers reimbursed by Medicare to
base decisions on quality rather than quantity of care and to move away
from a fee-for-service system.
* Promotes transparency by cracking down on waste and fraud in Medicare,
Medicaid, SCHIP and private insurers
Financial Responsibility
* Cuts the deficit by more than $100 billion in the first ten years,
then one trillion in the second ten years
* Constitutes the biggest deficit reduction package in more than a
decade
* Restores fiscal responsibility by reining in health care costs across
our economy
While some provision of the bill will be phased in over time, the
following provisions will take effect as soon as President Obama signs
the bill:
* Tax credits for small businesses
* Preventive care covered 100 percent by Medicare
* Closing the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole"
* Temporary coverage for early retirees, ages 55-64
* Insurance companies can no longer drop people from coverage when they
get sick
* Ends discrimination against children based on heath status or
pre-existing conditions
* Ends restrictive annual limits on benefits for new insurance policies
* Allows adult children to be covered under their parents' plan up to
the age of 26
* Ensures that insurers spend at least 80 percent of premiums on
medical care
* Eliminates copays for preventive care under new private plans
* Provides temporary coverage for Americans with pre-existing conditions
until Exchange is implemented
* Expands enough funding for community health centers to double capacity
in five years
Alan Meyer
You've posted so much on this subject that I don't remember which
five "facts" you're referring to.
You might have a look at QuiGon7x's posting in this thread to see
if they're discussed there. I believe that what he posted is an
Obama administration document. In general, I agree with it.
Conservatives have predicted doom and gloom for one progressive
change in America after another, from civil rights, to income
tax, Social Security, Medicare, bank regulation, minimum wage,
regulation of air and water pollution, work week and child labor
regulations, and on and on. In case after case there were
insistent cries of "Socialism!", "Communism!", "Destruction of
the economy!", "The end of freedom and democracy!"
Like the people listening to the little boy who cried wolf, I
have tuned out. There are conservative commentators like David
Brookes that I still listen to, but the hysterics on health care
have left me behind.
I know I can't convince you of anything and, at this point, I
refuse to beat my head against the wall by trying. I have better
things to do with my time.
I would like to know however, if you were a doctor, would you
refuse to treat me because I voted for Obama and support the
health insurance reform? I know you think it's the doctor's
right to do what he did. For the sake of argument, I'm willing
to stipulate that you're right about that. Now I want to know
if, all legal issues aside, you think he did the right thing, and
would you do it too if you were a doctor?
Alan
MZB
wish... and let others be damned
Mel
"I.P. Freely" <fuhghed...@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:ujsvn.151955$K81.1...@newsfe18.iad...
Magnus
news:hpm5va$m6o$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Obviously this is a public forum and you can spout whatever garbage you
> wish... and let others be damned
Nah... you've confused USENET with the white house
Ronju99
Alan,
Ronju99
>
> - Show quoted text -
Alan, I fail to see where the Doc refused to treat anyone. Telling
someone that if they voted for the health bill to seek health care
elsewhere is not the same as refusing to treat someone. It's only a
suggestion and I'm sure he hopes it works but nowhere did he say he
would refuse to treat anyone.
Ron S.
I.P. Freely
> I.P. Freely wrote:
> > Yet you refuse to state which of the five facts I posted you
> > disagree with. Seems to me the way to agreement would be
> > discussing specific facts in dispute, rather than just saying
> > mine are wrong.
> You've posted so much on this subject that I don't remember which
> five "facts" you're referring to.
Then I repeat: the primary lessons of Obamacare include:
1. Don't grow old. Your care will diminish significantly, including
extended care rationing.
2. Don't grow your small business. Past 50 employees your costs will
skyrocket.
3. Public opinion even to the 80% level can and may be rejected by this
administration.
4. Work less, produce less, and earn less, and ye shall be rewarded.
(This is called negative feedback in systems engineering, and it
resembles pouring cold molasses into a Swiss watch.)
5. Work more, earn more, and earn more, and even if ye provide thousands
of jobs and enrich the world, ye shall be ostracized, demonized, and
fiscally punished (more cold molasses).
> You might have a look at QuiGon7x's posting in this thread to see
> if they're discussed there. I believe that what he posted is an
> Obama administration document. In general, I agree with it.
Of course you do. You confess below that you tune out the facts of this
issue.
> Conservatives have predicted doom and gloom for one progressive
> change in America after another, from civil rights
And how's that working out?
• The left's primary response to any objection -- even from Democrats --
to any Obama policy is *"YOU'RE A RACIST!"*.
• Affirmative action, aka reverse discrimination.
> to income tax
Which was originally 0% up to $66,000 for singles/$90,000 married (in
today's dollars), one percent up to $450,000, and didn't hit its 7% peak
until income hit $11 million. Corporate income taxes were 1/35 of
today's percentages.
> Social Security
• Never intended or claimed to provide a decent sole means of support.
• Lulled scores or hundreds of millions of people into living beyond
their means and saving ZIP for retirement.
• Bankrupt.
> Medicare
• It costs 9 times its forecast cost, not even counting inflation.
• Bankrupt any day now even BEFORE Obamacare takes its $523B cut.
> bank regulation
Look how well that worked out.
> minimum wage
aka welfare, which rewards lack of motivation and was never intended to
be a living wage, any more than SS was.
> I have tuned out.
Sadly, that's obvious.
> There are conservative commentators like David
> Brooks that I still listen to
That explains a lot. Even CNN considers him a liberal and backs it up,
and Brooks' own words betray his claim to be conservative:
“The task ahead is to save this country from stagnation and fiscal ruin.
We know what it will take. We will have to raise a consumption tax
[read: VAT, on TOP of all our other taxes. They hit 25% in Europe.] We
will have to preserve benefits for the poor and cut them for the middle
and upper classes [including health care, as claimed and intended by
Obama, Pelosi, and this bill]. We will have to invest more in innovation
and human capital.”
Both he and you (and Hillary Clinton) refer to "progressive" ideology as
though it were commendable. The Progressive Party platform (read it)
explicitly supports vastly increased welfare and unionization, complete
government control of everyone’s business and personal lives, forced
redistribution of all private and corporate wealth, public (i.e.,
government) ownership of virtually all resources from farms to Wall
Street, voters overruling law (aka anarchy), voting rights for children,
a federal health care system proven to fail and which their platform
proves they do not understand, trade barriers, and dismantlement of our
military? Worse yet, many of its supporters don’t even comprehend the
harm those things do to our nation.
> the hysterics on health care have left me behind.
By your own admission just above, so have the facts.
> I can't convince you of anything
You could, but it requires facts, not feelings.
> I would like to know however, if you were a doctor, would you
> refuse to treat me because I voted for Obama and support the
> health insurance reform?
He refused treatment to no one. You really need to tune back in to real
news if you're to credibly discuss issues.
> I know you think it's the doctor's right to do what he did.
So do our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
> Now I want to know
> if, all legal issues aside, you think he did the right thing, and
> would you do it too if you were a doctor?
I asked you first: Which of my very short list of five Obamacare tenets
is invalid, and why?
Alan Meyer
Everyone except I.P. may want to skip the rest of this.
I.P. Freely wrote:
> Alan Meyer wrote:
>> I.P. Freely wrote:
>
>> > Yet you refuse to state which of the five facts I posted you
>> > disagree with. Seems to me the way to agreement would be
>> > discussing specific facts in dispute, rather than just saying
>> > mine are wrong.
>
>> You've posted so much on this subject that I don't remember which
>> five "facts" you're referring to.
>
> Then I repeat: the primary lessons of Obamacare include:
> 1. Don't grow old. Your care will diminish significantly, including
> extended care rationing.
False in all the following senses:
a. Diminishing care, if it occurs, will have nothing to do with
the health insurance reform bill. Skyrocketing health care
costs are impacting care for everyone and pressure on Medicare
has been building for years. It is not caused by this law.
b. This law will slow the growth of health care costs. Senior
health costs might grow faster without this.
c. Rationing occurs now. It's based on the quality of your
insurance. No new rationing will be introduced.
d. The Republican Party opposed Medicare when it was introduced
and voted against it. The Republican platform has never been
to preserve Medicare, but to eliminate it. It is rank
hypocrisy for Republicans to clothe their opposition to the
new health insurance reform in the guise of protecting
Medicare.
> 2. Don't grow your small business. Past 50 employees your costs will
> skyrocket.
True but misleading. The small businessman's costs will go up
for one of two reasons:
a. Either he didn't plan to provide health care for his growing
business but now has to, or
b. His costs will go up, not because the cost to larger
businesses will have gone up but because the cost to smaller
businesses will go down.
One of the reasons why many small employers do not provide health
insurance now is that their competitors don't and they might be
driven out of business if they spend more than their competitors.
But under the new reforms, everyone has to participate so the
competitive problem goes away. This helps small businessmen help
their employees without hurting themselves.
> 3. Public opinion even to the 80% level can and may be rejected
> by this administration.
I haven't seen any 80% numbers. I have seen that a majority do
not accept the health care plan. I've also seen that a great many
of the members of that majority don't understand it - including
you I think.
If you take each provision of the health care bill and ask people
do you support this, do you support this, do you support this,
it is my understanding that a majority supports each provision.
But the huge volume of lies and distortions promoted by
self-serving insurance companies and politicians has tricked a
lot of people into opposing the bill who would support it if they
understood it.
I'm not saying that there are no good reasons to oppose this
bill. I personally have many criticisms of it from the left.
But I am saying that the bulk of opposition to it is not based on
good reasons.
Should politicians do what they think is right even if the
majority opposes it? I think that sometimes they should. We
call that "leadership".
> 4. Work less, produce less, and earn less, and ye shall be
> rewarded. (This is called negative feedback in systems
> engineering, and it resembles pouring cold molasses into a
> Swiss watch.)
I don't know exactly what you're referring to here.
Negative incentives are a problem in a number of government
programs. I agree that they are a problem.
> 5. Work more, earn more, and earn more, and even if ye provide
> thousands of jobs and enrich the world, ye shall be ostracized,
> demonized, and fiscally punished (more cold molasses).
This is much more of an argument against progressive income tax
than against health care reform. It was the argument used back
in the days when progressive income tax was introduced and has
been used by Republicans ever since. In it's logically
conclusive form, people at all income levels should pay the same
percentage of income to the government. In the most extreme
form, Maggie Thatcher's "poll tax", all people should pay the
same dollar amount, period.
You might like the poll tax. I don't.
I have never believed that people would work less or try to earn
less if they were taxed more. Some of the periods of highest
economic growth in the U.S. saw the highest marginal tax rates
and the fewest tax loopholes.
I see zero empirical evidence for this ideological view which is
propounded by rich people for the purpose of getting richer, not
for the purpose of stimulating economic growth on behalf of all
citizens.
> ... The left's primary response to any objection -- even from
> Democrats -- to any Obama policy is *"YOU'RE A RACIST!"*. ...
I have seen that response and, like you, I condemn it. I abhor
racism but I also abhor accusations of racism where they are not
clearly justified.
I've never called you a racist and don't ever plan to.
> Which was originally 0% up to $66,000 for singles/$90,000
> married (in today's dollars), one percent up to $450,000, and
> didn't hit its 7% peak until income hit $11 million. Corporate
> income taxes were 1/35 of today's percentages.
Income tax was much higher in the 50's and 60's. It was really
under Reagan that it began to come down.
You're not going to persuade me that the rich are oppressed by
the poor in this country.
Go tell that laid off Walmart clerk, pushed out because her
many years of loyal service have resulted in her employment and
health care costs climbing to 55% above the cost of a new high
school grad, that she should stop oppressing and exploiting the
Walmart heirs. (See _The Retail Revolution_ by Nelson
Lichtenstein). See if you can persuade her.
Incidentally, she won't actually be laid off. If Walmart laid
her off they'd have to pay more in unemployment compensation tax.
Instead they'll shift her hours to Saturday, Sunday, and the
afternoon and evening so that she can't spend waking hours with
her husband and school age children, prompting her to quit.
>
>> Social Security
>
> • Never intended or claimed to provide a decent sole means of
> support. • Lulled scores or hundreds of millions of people
> into living beyond their means and saving ZIP for retirement.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to save money.
Lots of hard working people get hit by a corporate implosion and
find themselves out of work and unemployable in a down economy
through no fault of their own. It doesn't take long to wipe out
savings in that situation.
Social Security helps tremendously with that.
Interestingly, I have read that 60% (!!!) of bankruptcies in the
U.S. involve medical bills. The new reforms will reduce that.
...
>> minimum wage
>
> aka welfare, which rewards lack of motivation and was never
> intended to be a living wage, any more than SS was.
Minimum wage is opposed by many rich business people. They think
it cuts into their wealth. But, although it's primary
beneficiaries are working people, it also serves business well by
leveling the playing field. If there were no minimum wage,
employers of unskilled labor would be forced by competition to
cut wages below the point where anyone could conceivably live on
them. This would not increase profits. Your burger joint would
still be competing against all the others and would be forced to
pass on the savings from $2/hour wages in lower prices. Those
consumers whose incomes were not influenced by minimum wage would
benefit, but no one else would - not employers, not employees.
I have no doubt that the minimum wage is in the long term
interest of all Americans, and should probably be higher than it
is.
>> There are conservative commentators like David Brooks that I
>> still listen to
>
> That explains a lot. Even CNN considers him a liberal and backs
> it up, and Brooks' own words betray his claim to be
> conservative: “The task ahead is to save this country from
> stagnation and fiscal ruin. We know what it will take. We will
> have to raise a consumption tax [read: VAT, on TOP of all our
> other taxes. They hit 25% in Europe.] We will have to preserve
> benefits for the poor and cut them for the middle and upper
> classes [including health care, as claimed and intended by
> Obama, Pelosi, and this bill]. We will have to invest more in
> innovation and human capital.”
He's on the left side of the conservative spectrum, but still
pretty conservative. VAT is the most conservative of taxes.
Rich people love it. It reduces their ratio of tax:income below
that of poor people, who must spend almost all of their income in
order to live.
...
>> Now I want to know if, all legal issues aside, you think he
>> did the right thing, and would you do it too if you were a
>> doctor?
>
> I asked you first: Which of my very short list of five
> Obamacare tenets is invalid, and why?
>
Alright, I've answered. Now it's your turn.
Alan
Claude
"I.P. Freely" <fuhghed...@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:ujsvn.151955$K81.1...@newsfe18.iad...
I don't "dictate" anything, and I don't have any power to allow or disallow
comments on Usenet. As MZB has pointed out, this is a public forum and
people can say what they want.
However, if I could dictate, I would delete most of your verbiage. You have
become little more than a troll whose smugness and arrogance has offended
not only sincerely held political beliefs and social positions, but the
religious committments of, I am sure, many posters in this group. You have
generated angry responses, and in so doing, taken over long, long threads in
this group. I try to imagine what it is like for someone of a liberal
political persuasion, or a devout Catholic, Protestant, or Muslim, or one
engaged in working with poor people, or a patriot of a country whose
political system you decry, scared to death because they have prostate
cancer, coming into this group simply for help and support, and they see all
the space taken up by your long and arrogant diatribes and angry responses
to them. I have been in this group since 2002. And I have noticed 2
trends, and I believe they are related. The first is far fewer posters
discussing prostate cancer and its treatments and long threads centered
around your political, social, and religious biases. People come here for
help with a disease, and they get large doses of your emotional and verbal
masturbation. Is it any wonder they don't stay around this forum the way
they used to?
I consciously have not responded to your comments recently. And this will
be my last response to you. You are a troll, and trolls are only encouraged
and titilated by responses.
Ronju99
> "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> wrote in message
I'm always impressed by the high and almighty responses to a posting
that from the get-go was posted by one of our most esteem contributors
and how wholly disgusted they are by some of the responses. I haven't
quite figured out why they even read the post when it obviously is not
pertaining directly to prostate cancer. However, even after other
postings have followed, they keep coming back to this same old
disgusting thread. I did notice that these offended posters are pretty
active on many other sites. Why do they keep coming back to this
disgusting site. Some have referenced other moderated sites that are
much cleaner without all the garbage.
As for IP and Alan's responses, I find them interesting and they also
fill the gap when when I'm bored as many others probably are or they
wouldn't be reading this post.
Ron S.
I.P. Freely
> "I.P. Freely"wrote:
>> You have repeatedly refused to tell us why you get to dictate which
>> aspects of our health care the rest of us are allowed to discuss
>> here.
> I don't "dictate" anything
Then I suggest you change your computer password so your neighbor can’t
post under your name. Just in the last four months, he has posted 10
attempts/appeals to suppress/ban/ignore all political comments,
regardless of their relevancy to our health care. Some of them included
false personal attacks, another stated that right wing posts have no
place here … despite his numerous left wing posts under your nym. You
really ought to take that neighbor’s key away from him.
> this is a public forum and people can say what they want.
Man, your neighbor and you are of opposite mindsets. Must make living
next door pretty tough.
> if I could dictate, I would delete most of your verbiage.
Message > Create filter from message > Name > Match > Action > OK.
Beyond that, you have no right to repeatedly demand that we who
associate health care legislation with our health care refrain from
discussing it.
> You have become little more than a troll.
> You are a troll
Troll: one who lies just to elicit responses. What lie have I posted?
> whose smugness and arrogance
Telling those of us who believe health care policies are relevant to our
health care that we must not discuss health care policies is not only
arrogant, but even potentially life threatening.
> has offended not only sincerely held political beliefs
If important and relevant facts and/or logically supported opinions
about health care policies offend someone’s beliefs, I see two options
for them: ignore the facts and/or logic, or challenge their beliefs.
Choosing their option should be their call, not yours. We would have
been British subjects right up until we became Nazis, then Muslims, if
we hadn’t challenged others’ political beliefs. In addition, the rapidly
growing majority of Americans oppose Obamacare precisely because of the
facts I’ve presented here, especially its deliberate and very real
negative impact on health care for seniors. You’re welcome to take it
lying down personally, but IMO you have only a legal right, not a moral
one, to oppose its open discussion and exposure in a forum involving
health care for seniors.
> and [offended] social positions
You don’t think people who choose welfare as their preferred means of
support -- and the people who support that as national policy -- offend
the huge majority of hard-working Americans? You prefer to offend the
latter just to avoid offending the former?
> but the religious commitments
That accusation was a false allegation initiated by Steve Kramer in
response to one short, specific post of mine that he clearly misread and
refused to re-read. Not one other forum member could find any intended
or accidental insult to any religion in my post.
> You have generated angry responses
No, THEY generated those responses as responses to my facts and
supported opinions. That’s why so many of them are killfiled;if they
can’t behave like adults most of the time, I choose to ignore them.
> taken over long, long threads
• Heaven forbid long threads.
• Should we all live, and learn, and solve our problems in short bursts
of sound bites?
• Who’s making you take your valuable time to read the long threads?
• Why aren’t you complaining about other people’s long threads, long
posts, overt religious slams, political commentary unrelated or related
to our health care, offensive comments, and unfounded personal attacks?
• Maybe you should ask yourself if your *real* complaint is not that I
consider health care legislation relevant to health care but that I
believe that *competent, capable* people should take responsibility for
their own welfare rather than *choosing* to have the government force
the self-reliant to subsidize their food, housing, and/or clothes so
they can save their cash for their TIVO systems or swimming pools?
• Doesn’t it PISS YOU OFF that taxpayers are bailing out seven-figure
mortgages because the borrowers don’t want to tap their portfolios for
mortgage payments, and that people use public-funded ambulances as taxis
to the mall?
• *I get it* that a few million Americans fully and desperately need and
deserve help. How does that justify the decimation of our economy
(according to the CBO, Ben Bernanke, Warren Buffet, the WSJ, and >100M
other analysts and citizens) and the world’s leading health care system
(according to every significant nation and every U.S. state which has
tried a system like Obamacare).
• My state tried Hillarycare -- an Obamacare model -- with damning
results, but still hasn’t learned its lesson completely: our governor
decrees the number of hospital beds in our large and extensive PRIVATELY
OWNED local hospital systems, with no consideration that ours is the
fastest-growing community in the entire nation. Result: local citizens
are commonly refused care this side of Spokane, 150 miles away, because
every hospital bed is occupied.
• That will grow nation-wide as care becomes free. Insurance companies
already report being swamped by calls of, “Where’s my free Obamacare?”.
> I try to imagine what it is like for someone of a liberal
> political persuasion, or a devout Catholic, Protestant, or Muslim, or one
> engaged in working with poor people, or a patriot of a country whose
> political system you decry, scared to death because they have prostate
> cancer, coming into this group simply for help and support, and they see
> all the space taken up by your long and arrogant diatribes and angry
> responses to them.
• Show us my angry responses to anyone seeking help or my denigration of
any faith or of religion in general. If you can’t, your comment is just
another example of libelous, biased, unsupported ad hominem. Your
implied “Racist, xenophobe, pants on fire” is classic liberal bullroar.
• Their *political* system is irrelevant to this forum. Their *health
care* systems are vital to this forum, because Obamacare is modeled
after most of them.
• Damn right my responses are long and thorough. STILL, people find ways
to distort or flat lie about what I have or have not said.
> I have noticed 2 trends
Evidence, please?
> and I believe they are related.
Evidence, please?
> The first is far fewer posters
> discussing prostate cancer and its treatments and long threads centered
> around your political, social, and religious biases.
Besides good old-fashioned self-reliance, just what political, social,
and religious biases would these be?
> People come here for
> help with a disease, and they get large doses of your emotional
Sorry, dude, but I leave most of the emotion to the flamethrowers, most
of whom I’ve PLONKed *because* they’re flamethrowers. As for *passion*
-- for rational debate, solving problems, truth, reality, logic,
legislation relevant to our health care, telling it like it is rather
than how we’d like everything to be, etc. -- I plead guilty. Perfection,
however? Not guilty; that’s demanding too much.
> and verbal masturbation.
Is that something like a hummer?
> Is it any wonder they don’t stay around this forum the way
> they used to?
If in fact that’s true, I wonder which chases off more people … health
care realities, or endless, vicious, juvenile, libelous personal
attacks? Candid, factual discussions of side effects -- which the
archives show began with my insistence thereof -- or attempts to
suppress others’ discussions of topics they consider relevant?
I.P.
Alan Meyer
...
> I.P. Freely wrote:
...
> > I asked you first: Which of my very short list of five
> > Obamacare tenets is invalid, and why?
> >
>
> Alright, I've answered. Now it's your turn.
>
> Alan
I'm still waiting I.P.
You asked me to respond to your five "facts". I did so. I
argued that every one of them is invalid. I put some time
and energy into it because you asked me to, even though I
knew that I wouldn't convince you of anything and I wasn't
sure you'd even read my response.
It looks like you have not read the response you requested
me to make.
But I'm still waiting for an answer to the following questions:
I would like to know however, if you were a doctor, would you
refuse to treat me because I voted for Obama and support the
health insurance reform? I know you think it's the doctor's
right to do what he did. For the sake of argument, I'm willing
to stipulate that you're right about that. Now I want to know
if, all legal issues aside, you think he did the right thing, and
would you do it too if you were a doctor?
Alan
Steve Kramer
news:hpsvru$rpg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> I'm still waiting I.P.
I know full well how IP can cause an atypical response considering the
lapses in civility he has provoked in me (et al.) over the years.
But, you Alan? While IP's opinion on socialized anything are similar to
mine, I have to admit that was a Grade A taunt. And I commend you for it.
I.P. Freely
> Everyone except I.P. may want to skip the rest of this.
Unless, of course, they care about their and their children’s health
care, to which much of this is quite relevant.
> I.P. Freely wrote:
>> 1. Don't grow old. Your care will diminish significantly, including
>> extended care rationing.
> False in all the following senses:
> a. Diminishing care, if it occurs, will have nothing to do with
> the health insurance reform bill. It is not caused by this law.
This bill greatly adds to the Medicare and Medicaid rolls while
stripping $523B from their coffers at the same time simple Baby Boomer
demographics swell Medicare ranks by 30%. It adds tens of millions to
the insurance pools while driving off scores to hundreds of thousands of
doctors. Do the math, and Google Health Care Czar Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel,
discussed below, who specifically targets people over 40 and under 15
for diminished care.
> b. This law will slow the growth of health care costs.
Every apolitical analyst and analysis I can find says it will increase
premiums -- our most obvious cost -- dramatically, likely by > 53%. The
bill specifically avoids some of the most obvious cost savers such as
interstate competition, while greatly and explicitly rewarding Big
Pharma and unions. Even Dr. Emanuel admits that "Vague promises of
savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness,
installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely
'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for
true change".
> c. Rationing occurs now. It's based on the quality of your
> insurance. No new rationing will be introduced.
The board to allocate health care has already been identified and
chartered. Rationing is the 800-pound gorilla in the bankrupt Canada and
U.K. systems Obamacare emulates. Medicare, another Obamacare model,
rejects twice as many claims as insurance companies do.
And if you think death panels are an invention of Sarah Palin, guess
again. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, White House health adviser and rationing
czar, has written very prolifically and adamantly for two decades about
who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth
saving. He strongly and publicly advocates shifting the physician's
obligation from patient needs towards societal benefit by overturning
the Hippocratic oath (quote: "Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too
seriously" From: Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008) and has fought for 17
years for a government takeover of health care. The details of his
writings in NEJM, JAMA, Lancer, et.al. are outright frightening. The WHO
rates the U.S. No. 1 out of 191 countries for responsiveness to the
needs and choices of the individual patient; Dr. Emanuel's views overtly
threaten that. His “Complete Lives” system prioritizes care for
individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years, while attenuating care
for those younger and older. He has expressly and publicly advocated
since 1993 denying guaranteed health care to people with dementia
because they are not productive. Downs syndrome? Tough. Alzheimer’s?
Hope you’re rich and get it while private health care is still allowed.
No new rationing? You’re kidding, right?
> d. The Republican Party opposed Medicare when it was introduced
> and voted against it.
And what’s your point? It is going bankrupt, it wastes > $80B a year of
taxpayer funds in criminal fraud alone, and it rejects twice as many
claims as insurance companies do. Any commercial competitor that lost
1/4 that much to fraud would be in prison if open market competition
didn’t flush it down the toilet first.
> > 2. Don't grow your small business. Past 50 employees your costs will
> > skyrocket.
>
> True but misleading. The small businessman's costs will go up
> for one of two reasons:
>
> a. Either he didn't plan to provide health care for his growing
> business but now has to, or
“Has to”? *”Has to”?* Look up “fascism” in the dictionary.
> b. His costs will go up, not because the cost to larger
> businesses will have gone up but because the cost to smaller
> businesses will go down.
Nope. The bill (and the means to fund it) raises all SB costs in many
ways, including huge unconstitutional fines if they don’t subsidize
health care insurance, a 51-employee threshold for that and other
additional expenses. an almost certain and possibly huge VAT hitting
every person within our borders, and on and on and on.
> One of the reasons why many small employers do not provide health
> insurance now is that their competitors don't and they might be
> driven out of business if they spend more than their competitors.
> But under the new reforms, everyone has to participate so the
> competitive problem goes away. This helps small businessmen help
> their employees without hurting themselves.
How does being forced to raise expenses and prices help any business,
any customer, or the economy? And, really, look up “fascism” in the
dictionary.
> > 3. Public opinion even to the 80% level can and may be rejected
> > by this administration.
>
> I haven't seen any 80% numbers.
Polls > a year ago showed that 85% of Americans are satisfied with their
health care. Polls still show that a solid majority of Americans
specifically oppose Obamacare, and those polls climb continuously on
both sides of the political fence as ever more Obamacare facts emerge.
> I've also seen that a great many
> of the members of that majority don't understand it - including
> you I think.
I’ve seen and heard literally hundreds of debates and analyses on every
aspect of this issue involving heads of state, some of the world’s
richest men, global economics giants, the nation’s and world’s bankers,
university business schools, the man on the street, historians,
financial media, financial and investment textbooks, very expensive
purely financial tomes written by and/or sold to experts managing
billions of dollars, liberals/conservatives/independents … and you’re
right: I still don’t understand it. But you, OTOH, admit that you’ve
tuned out, so I’ll wager that my understanding of it still exceeds yours
by two landslides and a tsunami.
> If you take each provision of the health care bill and ask people
> do you support this, do you support this, do you support this,
> it is my understanding that a majority supports each provision.
Then your understanding is virtually nonexistent. How many support:
Taxpayer (including Catholic)-funded abortions, even at nine months?
Unconstitutional (i.e., ILLEGAL) federal mandates that every citizen
must buy a product?
Subsidizing insurance for people, including millionaires, who earn up to
$88,200?
Buying votes by giving 24-yo adults a free ride on their parents’ policy?
Bribing senators with billions of taxpayer dollars to vote for the bill?
Dictating how much and in what manner businesses must compensate
employees? (Did you check the definition of “fascism”?)
Congressmen and the President himself repeatedly lying about the bill’s
provisions (e.g., costs, coverage, benefits, abortion coverage)?
PP 425-430 of HR3200, which penalizes your doctor if you later change
your living will decisions?
I’ll spare you hundreds of similarly damning provisions of the bill, and
it’s still being written).
> But the huge volume of lies and distortions promoted by
> self-serving insurance companies
Of COURSE they’re self-serving; a CEO’s Prime Directive is to maximize
profits legally. Anything less and their CEOs should be fired if
incompetent, imprisoned if criminal. But do you have any concept how
tiny their 2.2% profit margin is? I consider it abominable that the
White House has demonized them because they eke out a 2.2% profit
margin, then given the SEIU hundreds of billions in concessions just to
buy their support … exactly as Dr. Emanuel specifically and very
strongly advised in writing.
> and politicians has tricked a
> lot of people into opposing the bill who would support it if they
> understood it.
Not one legislator read the bill before voting on it. IMO, any pol who
votes for any bill, let alone of the most earth-shaking bills in the
history of the world, without first reading and understanding it should
be recalled from office that very day. His very charter as an elected
official in a Republic demands that he thoroughly understand any
legislation he votes on.
> I'm not saying that there are no good reasons to oppose this
> bill. I personally have many criticisms of it from the left.
> But I am saying that the bulk of opposition to it is not based on
> good reasons.
National bankruptcy due to historic deficit spending -- which the CBO,
Bernanke, Warren Buffett, Chancellor Merckel, CHINA, et.al. INCLUDING A
GENTLEMAN NAMED BARACK OBAMA, warn of -- sound like a pretty valid basis
for opposition. Dragging our medical care system to the self-admitted
cellars of those in Canada and the U.K. sound like a pretty valid basis
for opposition.
> Should politicians do what they think is right even if the
> majority opposes it? I think that sometimes they should..
Actually, that’s their very job, as defined in a Republic. By
definition, in a Republic, we elect pols whom we believe know more about
the issues than we can, then trust them to vote for what’s right … *NOT*
just what gets them reelected. That’s why citizens have no vote in a
presidential election (that’s the electoral college’s exclusive job),
and why our nation’s founders warned us so adamantly to avoid at all
costs becoming a democracy.
> > 4. Work less, produce less, and earn less, and ye shall be
> > rewarded. (This is called negative feedback in systems
> > engineering, and it resembles pouring cold molasses into a
> > Swiss watch.)
>
> I don't know exactly what you're referring to here.
Let me rephrase it: “As long as you don’t earn too much, your nanny will
pay your way.” It provides a huge, reinforcing, monetary reward for
sitting on one’s ass.
> Negative incentives are a problem in a number of government
> programs. I agree that they are a problem.
>
> > 5. Work more, earn more, and earn more, and even if ye provide
> > thousands of jobs and enrich the world, ye shall be ostracized,
> > demonized, and fiscally punished (more cold molasses).
>
> This is much more of an argument against progressive income tax
> than against health care reform.
There’s realistic, thoroughly acceptable progressive income tax, and
then there’s pure, forced, more extreme, Marxist redistribution of
wealth, as Obama during his campaign warned us that he favors. It’s
achieved in many ways, including Obamacare.
>
> You might like the poll tax. I don't.
Then you should hate the next big step in funding Obama’s insane,
world-beating spending spree. The VAT will be highly regressive. Can you
*imagine* the effect on the 48% of adults who now pay no income taxes of
having a consumption tax *on top of* all their other old and new taxes,
especially if the VAT hits the forecast levels of 20%? (It ranges from
15-25% in its European model nations.) And on what planet should Bill
Gates be demonized and/or ostracized because he got rich?
> I have never believed that people would work less or try to earn
> less if they were taxed more.
> I see zero empirical evidence for this, which is propounded by
> rich people for the purpose of getting richer, not
> for the purpose of stimulating economic growth on behalf of all
> citizens.
I sure as hell would, and did. What sane and self-respecting person
would work harder or longer at a normal job if the direct result were a
lower bottom line? I refused promotion to Lt. Col. because it would
lower my net pay (due to forced relocation to a much higher cost area),
dramatically extend my hours per day, delay my retirement by years, and
cost me far more in moving expenses than the slight pay increase would
offset. Millions of welfare recipients game that system, including
whelping and walking away from jobs, to be certain they don’t exceed
benefit loss thresholds. At the corporate level, jobs are outsourced by
the tens of millions to avoid ever-higher taxes.
Surely I misunderstand, even after reading your comment 10 times, that
you believe that higher taxes stimulate economic growth. If you think
that, you’re in a league of one.
> Some of the periods of highest
> economic growth in the U.S. saw the highest marginal tax rates
> and the fewest tax loopholes.
Yes … during the early 1940s, when there was another little matter
called World War Two driving the economy. Besides that, every time
capital gains taxes increase, as Obama is doing, federal revenues go
down. Isn’t it ironic that one of the few campaign promises he’s keeping
is his intent to punitively redistribute wealth *even though he knows it
will harm the economy*?
> > Which was originally 0% up to $66,000 for singles/$90,000
> > married (in today's dollars), one percent up to $450,000, and
> > didn't hit its 7% peak until income hit $11 million. Corporate
> > income taxes were 1/35 of today's percentages.
> Income tax was much higher in the 50’s and 60’s. It was really
> under Reagan that it began to come down.
Right … because he lowered income and capital gains taxes.
> You're not going to persuade me that the rich are oppressed by
> the poor in this country.
Read the dictionary; what part of “subjugated by force of authority”
does not apply here? Anyone who doesn’t buy health care insurance or
give money to citizens earning below $88,200 will be subject to the full
force of the IRS, and thus if necessary to armed subjugaton. The poor
don’t have do their own oppressing (except via their vote, as Reid and
Pelosi and Hillary so desperately pray). Barack Obama vowed on the ABC
Democratic candidate debate stage to *do it for them* despite his
repeated acknowledgment that it will harm the economy. IOW, he’d rather
punish the rich, as both he and Hillary have repeatedly vowed from the
dais to do, by taking from each according to his means and giving to
each according to his needs.
A. If you don’t know from whom they got that idea, Google it.
B. It ultimately abolishes the capitalist system, which right up through
2008 powered the most upwardly mobile economic system in the world.
C. In the sense that Obamanomics inherently mandates the most downwardly
mobile system this country has experienced since the 1930s, darn right
that it will be a case of the poor oppressing the rich, using the power
(and explicit intent*) of the modern self-described Progressive party
(if you REALY need a laxative, read its official platform) to
redistribute existing wealth downward rather than increase our overall
wealth.
* This comment is studied opinion; the other several pages are vetted fact.
> Go tell that laid off Walmart clerk, pushed out because her
> many years of loyal service have resulted in her employment and
> health care costs climbing to 55% above the cost of a new high
> school grad
Circuit City (you may remember them) tried that, and those kids’
incompetence bankrupted them. GE did that decades ago, and suffered
massive and crippling federal fines when it proved to be honest-to-gosh
discrimination. If Walmart did that extensively, it would attract more
official attention. However, what WM actually did was outsource their
Sam’s product demonstration function to a service corporation. This cut
about 10,000 workers from WM’s rolls, and increased the service
company’s rolls by … ta daaaaa … about 10,000. i.e., the 10,000 people
changed their badges. This goes on throughout the working world daily,
it’s sure as hell not the government’s business to stop it (the
government does it by the tens of thousands of jobs all the time), and
jobs belong to the company, not the dude in the job. Even Japan stopped
this nonsense of lifetime job entitlement.
> Incidentally, she won't actually be laid off. If Walmart laid
> her off they'd have to pay more in unemployment compensation tax.
> Instead they'll shift her hours to Saturday, Sunday, and the
> afternoon and evening so that she can't spend waking hours with
> her husband and school age children, prompting her to quit.
Totally comparable to the pressures Obamacare is explicitly designed to
implement to force the American people into taxpayer funded single
provider federal health care before his stated goal of 2028.
BTW … believe VERY little of what you read about Walmart. 99% of it
originates with pissed-off unions, and it was difficult to even Google
much about Walmart that didn’t involve the Huffington post, or Facebook,
or Keith Olbermann. My biggest complaint about WM is their eminent
domain abuse, and that doesn’t relate directly to health care. (Didja
know that the 25-yo kid who founded Facebook earns $3 BILLION annually
for it? Oh, that EVIL kid … forcing his wares on the unwilling public.
Hillary’s got to TAKE his obscene profits and give them to some slackers
who chose drugs over a GED and can’t make his $16,000 monthly mortgage
payments.)
> >> Social Security
> >
> > • Never intended or claimed to provide a decent sole means of
> > support. • Lulled scores or hundreds of millions of people
> > into living beyond their means and saving ZIP for retirement.
>
> Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to save money.
So we should destroy both health care and the economy to take care of
that tiny percent, when a few billion bucks would do the job? Besides,
competent people who deliberately relied on good fortune to pay their
way made their own damned bed, often *because* of the SS and minimum
wage myth. The slacker whose new pickemup truck and stereo kept him from
making mortgage payments to me changed his tune when his commanding
officer boiled him for breakfast and roasted the leftovers for lunch.
Harsh? You bet. But it saved his elite career and probably changed his
attitude for the better for life. President Clinton’s clampdown on
welfare did exactly that for millions of deliberate slackers.
BTW, don’t any of you dare say -- again -- that I’m implying that all
poor people are slackers. That would be a lie and you know it.
> Lots of hard working people get hit by a corporate implosion and
> find themselves out of work and unemployable in a down economy
> through no fault of their own. It doesn't take long to wipe out
> savings in that situation.
>
> Social Security helps tremendously with that.
>
> Interestingly, I have read that 60% (!!!) of bankruptcies in the
> U.S. involve medical bills. The new reforms will reduce that.
SO WOULD BUYING HEALTH CARE INSURANCE RATHER THAN CIGARETTES, BIG TVS,
AND NICER HOMES THAN I DO.
Most of the world’s leading economists have publicly stated Obama’s
spending, beginning with Obamacare, very seriously threatens to bankrupt
the nation.
> > minimum wage
> > aka welfare, which rewards lack of motivation and was never
> > intended to be a living wage, any more than SS was.
> Minimum wage is opposed by many rich business people. They think
> it cuts into their wealth.
I’ve never heard that one, and it makes no sense. What it does is cause
layoffs, raise prices, and/or reward people for choosing to remain
uneducated and underemployed. My state has the nation’s highest MW, and
its negative impacts on unemployment and dropping out of high school are
legion. The only overall benefactors, according to detailed professional
socioeconomic analysis, are unions, politician, and huge employers like
Walmart.
> But, although it's primary beneficiaries are working people
Bull. It slightly rewards some of them them for being too lazy to get
some education and a real job, and crushes the ones laid off *due to the
higher employer cost*. Would you support your competent 20-year-old kid
who dropped out of high school and can’t earn all he wants, or would you
tell him to get off his ass, get a GED, and get a freaking job?
> it also serves business well by
> leveling the playing field. If there were no minimum wage,
> employers of unskilled labor would be forced by competition to
> cut wages below the point where anyone could conceivably live on
> them. This would not increase profits. Your burger joint would
> still be competing against all the others and would be forced to
> pass on the savings from $2/hour wages in lower prices. Those
> consumers whose incomes were not influenced by minimum wage would
> benefit, but no one else would - not employers, not employees.
>
> I have no doubt that the minimum wage is in the long term
> interest of all Americans, and should probably be higher than it
> is.
My God, where do you GET this stuff? Not one apolitical economist of the
scores I’ve heard debate MW, nor any non-unin website I’ve found, agrees
with you on ANY of those points.
> >> There are conservative commentators like David Brooks that I
> >> still listen to
> >
> > That explains a lot. Even CNN considers him a liberal and backs
> > it up, and Brooks' own words betray his claim to be
> > conservative: “The task ahead is to save this country from
> > stagnation and fiscal ruin. We know what it will take. We will
> > have to raise a consumption tax [read: VAT, on TOP of all our
> > other taxes. They hit 25% in Europe.] We will have to preserve
> > benefits for the poor and cut them for the middle and upper
> > classes [including health care, as claimed and intended by
> > Obama, Pelosi, and this bill]. We will have to invest more in
> > innovation and human capital.”
>
> He's on the left side of the conservative spectrum, but still
> pretty conservative. VAT is the most conservative of taxes.
> Rich people love it.
Oh, suuuure … they just LOVE it when their taxes go up dramatically --
by literally millions of dollars in some cases -- especially with zero
loopholes. I guess you failed to notice that the yacht industry died
when they were singled out for tax increases on “the evil rich”, or that
Cessna laid off half its 16,000 employees when orders died because Nancy
Pelosi slammed CEOs for riding corporate jets … as she jetted off into
the sunset to the annual tune of $1M in taxpayer dollars for aircraft
operating costs and $50k for booze for congressional sots.
But we’re digressing from health care …
> It reduces [the rich’s] ratio of tax:income below
> that of poor people
Ratio, scmatio; it’s disposable income that counts, and the (rational)
rich have plenty of that, by definition. Yet the VAT cuts into that
disposable income, so the rich certainly don’t benefit from it.
> [the poor] must spend almost all of their income in
> order to live.
And a VAT will push many of the poor right into insolvency. Where’s the
benefit in that?
And of course a VAT stifles consumer spending, so the GDP drops and more
jobs go overseas. Who benefits from that?
Yet still Brooks SUPPORTS a VAT, rather than, you know … CUTTING
SPENDING. What’s conservative about that?
> >> Now I want to know if, all legal issues aside, you think he
> >> did the right thing, and would you do it too if you were a
> >> doctor?
> Alright, I've answered. Now it's your turn.
All the doctor did is inform patients that he’d rather the ones whose
knowing and intentional acts will greatly harm his business and staff
take their business elsewhere. The primary difference between their vote
and shoplifting is that the former is legal. I like the doctor’s spunk,
wish more citizens would speak out against *whatever* they disagree
with, and would probably do the same as he did. Look how much BS I
already put up with to support what I believe in.
I.P. Freely
> I'm still waiting I.P.
I, not anyone else, determine my work, sleep, and eating schedule. Only
strong winds displace those priorities. Just vetting my facts with
authoritative sources took quite a few hours; for the umpteenth time, I
don't take Fox or Talk Radio's word for much of anything ... CLAUDE.
I.P.
Alan Meyer
in detail. I appreciate it and have to thank you for that.
As for your answers vs. mine, as I have said many times, I think
we should agree to disagree. The things you say and the things I
say look like they're coming from citizens of different planets.
I like to think that I am from planet earth and you must be from
some planet orbiting a distant star, but then I'm sure you feel
the same way about me.
One of the problems that people have in arguments like ours is
that each person has not only a list of facts that he believes,
but an entire world view, as one philosopher puts it, an
interanimating network of beliefs and observations, that
motivates ones perception of the facts. You can't convince me
I'm wrong because all of the premises that you hold - about the
nature of the world, the economy, class, politics, history, are
completely different from mine. Your "facts" don't even make
sense in my world view, much less appear factual. And the same
is obviously true for my beliefs in your world view.
So neither of us has a snowball's chance in hell of convincing
the other.
But there is something I would like to convince you of. That is
that intelligent, decent, well meaning people can hold different
points of view, without concluding that the other person is a
fool, a jerk, or an idiot, and certainly not concluding that he
is unworthy of decent treatment as a human being. I've tried to
demonstrate that to you by always treating you with respect, and
even defending you against some of your attackers.
That is why I thought the position of the Florida urologist is
important. By treating supporters of Obama as enemies, not
worthy of his respect or his professional care, he showed that he
couldn't even recognize the common humanity that he shares with
people who voted for Obama.
That is also why I pressed you on this issue. I urge you to
reject the position of the Florida urologist. I urge you to
treat all of the people on this newsgroup who disagree with you,
not as enemies, but as decent, well meaning people. I urge you
to tone down some of your rhetoric and consider that, whether you
like the idea of Obama's health insurance reforms or not, the
people who support it are human beings just like yourself and
every bit as worthy of your care, respect and consideration.
My advice to you is: Lower the level of your rhetoric. Accept
the fact that people who disagree with you aren't stupid,
ignorant, or malicious. Don't put yourself in the same class as
the Florida urologist.
Alan
Ronju99
Alan, The Doctor specifically stated he was not turning anyone away.
However, if they chose to not seek care with him that was find too. It
would seem to me that you an others are basing your argument on
assumptions you have read into his statement and not on what he
actually said. I find that is a universal problem with many people and
why they have a hard time coming together with a meeting of the
minds.
In reading many of IP and your postings, you seem to be more of an
idealist and IP a realist. I find merit in both as we need idealist
forward looking ideas but we must have realist to keep us on track.
Ron S.
safire
> Alan, The Doctor specifically stated he was not turning anyone away.
He said so only when specifically asked by the television interviewer.
The sign on his door clearly says: "seek urologic care elsewhere".
(He also admitted in the interview that his information about health
care reform came from "the internet". Go figure.)
> However, if they cho[o]se to not seek care with him that was fin[e] too. It
> would seem to me that you an[d] others are basing your argument on
> assumptions you have read into his statement and not on what he
> actually said.
It would seem to be Alan and others are basing their arguments on the
sign on his door. So would any patient.
> In reading many of IP and your postings, you seem to be more of an
> idealist and IP a realist.
A realist would base his opinions on facts. Almost none of the "facts"
he quotes are actually facts. For example he claims the Canadian and UK
health care systems are bankrupt. They're not. Alan is wasting his
valuable time by continuing to be a polite erudite gentleman, while ip
is indiscriminately following the FNC party line without any interest in
reality, so please explain why you think he is a realist.
Alan Meyer
> On 4/12/2010 12:51 PM, Ronju99 wrote:
>
>> Alan, The Doctor specifically stated he was not turning anyone away.
>
> He said so only when specifically asked by the television interviewer.
> The sign on his door clearly says: "seek urologic care elsewhere".
> (He also admitted in the interview that his information about health
> care reform came from "the internet". Go figure.)
>
>
>> However, if they cho[o]se to not seek care with him that was fin[e]
>> too. It
>> would seem to me that you an[d] others are basing your argument on
>> assumptions you have read into his statement and not on what he
>> actually said.
>
> It would seem to be Alan and others are basing their arguments on the
> sign on his door. So would any patient.
Exactly.
As far as we know, the only communication from doctor to patient
was the sign on the door.
And even if, somehow, the patient were able to speak to the doctor
about it (and access to doctors is tough to get, as we all know),
and even if the doctor were to say exactly what he said to the TV
interviewer, would/should the patient trust that doctor to give
good care?
I wouldn't.
Alan
I.P. Freely
I was about to ask you to quote an example of my rhetoric (aka false
statements), but ... FINALLY ... something dawned on me. I apologize to
others who have watched this loooooooong debate between Alan and me for
my taking so darn long to recognize this: you're the second person I've
encountered in my life who genuinely does not recognize the difference
between fact and beliefs. That's not criticism or blame or denigration,
but merely a direct observation based on many of your comments. As an
engineer, scientist, and realist, I can't comprehend that, so it took me
way too long to realize it.
That last time I encountered this was in New Mexico, just before a lunar
eclipse. The Albuquerque Journal published a clear article, with orbital
diagrams, explaining that a lunar eclipse is the result of the earth's
solar shadow passing across the face of the moon. A couple of days later
a sincere letter to the editor was printed from an obviously earnest,
very articulate, apparently well educated local reader. It began with,
"Well, that's the white man's reality. In fact, lunar eclipses are
caused by the gods, thusly ...", followed by elegant paragraphs of
Indian lore that left no doubt about her conviction. She honest-to-God
did not comprehend that there is such a thing as a standalone fact, a
statement that remains unchanged when viewed from different vantage points.
There's no point debating someone whose mind doesn't comprehend that
distinction. Example: when I say Dr. Emanuel said something, it means
I've watched extended videos or read unimpeachable transcripts of the
speech or of the relevant one of his >200 publications, to be sure I'm
quoting them accurately and in full context. The result is a fact, not
just a belief. When I say Obamacare takes $523B from Medicare/Medicaid
to help fund Obamacare, that figure comes from the administration, not
Rush Limbaugh (I've heard it's now over $560B, but I'm not verified that
so I don't use that figure.) Similarly, while we all have our perfectly
valid *opinions* about the Florida doctor's statement, its words are
irrefutable *fact*, independent of the premises we hold based on our
views of the world, the economy, class, politics, history ...
I.P.
I.P. Freely
> safire wrote:
>> ([the doctor] also admitted in the interview that his information about health
>> care reform came from "the internet". Go figure.)
I see nothing inherently wrong with that. Where else can we find a
complete searchable copy plus erudite (and bogus) analyses of the bill?
I.P.
He'sDeadJim
I.P. Is a raving lunatic. There is really no point debating him. This
is what happens when you're a little unhinged to begin with and you
watch and breathe Fox News for hours and hours every day.
He can't admit to being wrong on anything. Thus it's always your fault
be you stupid, naive, or your mind just can't comprehend the "logic"
and brilliance of the I.P brain for he's a true renaissance man of the
21st century..............or else he's a usenet wingnut bully.
This is the only PCa site online he can't be removed from... and why
he continues his rants here.
ron
wrote...snip...
> I.P. Is a raving lunatic
>This is what happens when you're a little unhinged to begin with
Character assassination adds nothing to any debate, it merely reflects
upon the poster...ron
Alan Meyer
>
> I was about to ask you to quote an example of my rhetoric (aka
> false statements), but ... FINALLY ... something dawned on me.
> I apologize to others who have watched this loooooooong debate
> between Alan and me for my taking so darn long to recognize
> this: you're the second person I've encountered in my life who
> genuinely does not recognize the difference between fact and
> beliefs. That's not criticism or blame or denigration, but
> merely a direct observation based on many of your comments. As
> an engineer, scientist, and realist, I can't comprehend that,
> so it took me way too long to realize it.
Perhaps I've been trying too hard to be generous to you in this
thread. My discussion of "worldview" might be better stated as
simply saying that I believe you see the world through
ideological glasses that twist and distort reality. You hate
your ideological opponents so much that you will believe anything
at all about them, even including a belief that they are
advocating death panels, rationing, abortions, communism and
fascism. You dismiss the most credible and professional sources
of news and analysis as biased and rely instead on right wing
entertainers and demagogues to supply you with "facts". And you
believe and swallow all the horse manure they dish out.
I do absolutely recognize the difference between fact and belief.
I absolutely am a realist. I know quite a bit about science and
have studied it, and still study it, a lot, and at a reasonably
high level. I'm actually a pretty well read and highly educated
guy, and a person who most people treat as intelligent.
Here are the kinds of things you cite as facts that I find
outside the realm of reality:
1. "Google Health Care Czar Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, discussed below,
who specifically targets people over 40 and under 15 for
diminished care."
When did he become "Health Care Czar"? When did anyone
become "Health Care Czar"? I know that he is an advisor
in the current administration, but when did he take over
control of health care in this country?
2. "Every apolitical analyst and analysis I can find says it
will increase premiums -- our most obvious cost --
dramatically, likely by > 53%"
Which "apolitical analysts" are we referring to? Not the
Congressional Budget Office - the most authoritative
apolitical economic analysis organization in the United
States, generally accepted by both Republicans and
Democrats. The CBO says that the health insurance
reforms will save money as compared to no reforms.
Premiums are going up now. They will continue to go up.
Given enough time, and following current trends, they
may well go up 50% over a period of years. But it won't
be because of this bill.
3. "The bill specifically avoids some of the most obvious cost
savers such as interstate competition, while greatly and
explicitly rewarding Big Pharma and unions."
It's an interesting question as to whether the Republican
proposal to allow "interstate competition" would cut
costs, or just allow companies to circumvent state
imposed regulations on their operations. At any rate,
President Obama offered to accept that - IF AND ONLY IF
credible health insurance experts could show him that
this really would save money and wasn't just a diversion
from reform. To the best of my knowledge, the
Republicans never produced any study to show that. They
merely asserted that it would save money because it fits
their ideology of unrestricted markets.
As for rewarding Big Pharma - I agree there is too much
of that in the bill, and too much for big insurance
companies too. As for unions, the unions complained that
the bill taxes "cadillac health plans" that they have.
Some unions will benefit from the bill (mainly unions of
low paid workers). Some will suffer (unions of highly
compensated workers.)
4. "The board to allocate health care has already been
identified and chartered."
Could you point me to the New York Times, Washington
Post, or other _credible_ source that says this happened
here in the U.S.?
5. "... in the bankrupt Canada and U.K. systems..."
Last I heard Canada and the U.K. were still paying health
care bills for their citizens. I can't recall any of the
Canadian or UK participants in this newsgroup telling us
otherwise.
6. "... Taxpayer (including Catholic)-funded abortions, even at
nine months?"
This will be news to all of the anti-abortion Democrats
who agreed to support this bill because they were
convinced it would not provide any government funding for
abortions.
Think I.P., is there any politician in the country who is
suicidal enough to advocate government funded abortions
at nine months? How could you possibly even imagine that
this is true?
7. "Dictating how much and in what manner businesses must
compensate employees? (Did you check the definition of
“fascism”?)"
I guess that means that the minimum wage, child labor
laws, occupational health and safety, the 40 hour work
week, regulation of retirement plans, and all other laws
and regulations concerning employer/employee relations
are fascism.
All this time I thought Hitler and Mussolini were the
fascists. I didn't know it was all the American
presidents and most of the elected officials since
Theodore Roosevelt.
There's more, but that should be enough to illustrate my point.
> That last time I encountered this was in New Mexico, just
> before a lunar eclipse. ...
I think I've absorbed too many of your insults and heard enough
of your accusations of fascism, abortion mongering, death panels,
and all the rest.
I'm tired. I've had enough.
Please consider all of my questions about your facts to be purely
rhetorical and don't bother answering for my benefit. Whether or
not you do answer, you won't get any further replies from me.
Alan
Steve Kramer
> I.P. Freely wrote:
> >
> > I was about to ask you to quote an example of my rhetoric (aka
> > false statements), but ... FINALLY ... something dawned on me.
> > I apologize to others who have watched this loooooooong debate
> > between Alan and me for my taking so darn long to recognize
> > this: you're the second person I've encountered in my life who
> > genuinely does not recognize the difference between fact and
> > beliefs. That's not criticism or blame or denigration, but
> > merely a direct observation based on many of your comments. As
> > an engineer, scientist, and realist, I can't comprehend that,
> > so it took me way too long to realize it.
Yesterday, I honestly - and foolishly - thought this discussion was coming
to a well over due end.
I.P. Freely
> that should be enough to illustrate my point.
Sadly, it illustrates my points all too well.
I.P.
safire
1. You can't kill a character that has no life.
2. Nothing ip brought up can be considered a contribution to a "debate"
as that term is understood in academic circles. None of the "facts" he
presented are true, which is why he doesn't provide any source, as an
actual scientist (which he claims he is) would do. Typically he says: go
google it. As HDJ explained: he's just echoing FNC. As he admitted he
watches itr 5 hours a day on average, more than enough to get
brainwashed if you have a weak character.
3. Most absurd: he claims Alan doesn't recognize the difference between
facts and beliefs (now that's really an insult and character
assassination, but that apparently was OK with you). Did you actually
read Alan's arguments? Do you agree with ip that Alan doesn't know the
difference between facts and opinions or beliefs? What about ip?
ron
> 3. Most absurd: he claims Alan doesn't recognize the difference between
> facts and beliefs (now that's really an insult and character
> assassination, but that apparently was OK with you). Did you actually
> read Alan's arguments? Do you agree with ip that Alan doesn't know the
> difference between facts and opinions or beliefs? What about ip?
Safire...Yes I read Alan's arguments, as I did IP's. The point I was
making does not involve my analysis of their positions. Sometimes,
reading this newsgroup is like working out. There's plenty of bad
information, some name calling and unkind stuff posted here. If I can
read it and then if I choose to respond, respond in a civil, polite
fashion - well then like working out, I feel better about myself
afterwards...ron
He'sDeadJim
wrote:
You can't debate rationally with someone who is irrational. IP uses a
cancer support group to berate others with his wingnut beliefs. That's
fine if we were in a poitical newsgroup or hell in almost any other
newsgroup but not one established to be a support newsgroup for PCa.
He is the reason this ng has so few regulars and without him there
would be many more who stayed. That said I'm not going to fight for
this newsgroup when there are better support sites online that won't
put up with the likes of a Fox news mouthpiece like I.P.. This is the
only place online that IP can continually ramble on. Any other PCa
support site would have removed him long ago.
He'sDeadJim
I.P. doesn't want this to ever end it's his reason for living. I keep
telling you he's looney toons. He's well beyond just being a strong
advocate , he's nuts!!!! See if you don't believe as he does there's
something mentally wrong with whoever disagrees. Yes the nonbeliever
just can't grasp facts. Do you believe that also Steve?
Yeah IP the "realist"!!!!!! LMAO
Claude
"He'sDeadJim" <Hesde...@nienspamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5vc9s59dpeas98409...@4ax.com...
HDJ,
IP is like a troll. He thrives on the attention and stirring up people. If
everyone would ignore him, as I am now going to, and even Alan, who is as
reasonable and long-suffering as they come, apparently is too, he will
eventually stop posting the non-sense---because he will no longer be getting
the attention. Just my $.02
He'sDeadJim
wrote:
You're right if IP was the average troll here, but he's an obsessed
troll. I first saw him and his act when I first came here upon PCa dx
back in 11/2007 he hasn't changed from then nor will he. He's not the
first usenet bully I've seen ruin and takeover a newsgroup, I go a
long way back on usenet. But the fact he's doing such in a cancer
support newsgroup is reprehensible. True he does contribute to cancer
at times but putting up with his trolling, berating, insulting and
driving away people who come here in search of support is just not
worth it. In IP's crazy world he must believe he's devinely chosen
to spout Fox News talking points adnauseum. One of those usenet
nutcases who without a newgsgroup like this would have to live his
life staring out from his window as it passes him by. Sad to say if
there were just a single other regular here IP would still be posting
like he does now, normal sane trolls insist on a sizeable audience,
but not obsessed nutballs
I.P. Freely
> safire wrote
>> 3. Most absurd: he claims Alan doesn't recognize the difference between
>> facts and beliefs (now that's really an insult and character
>> assassination, but that apparently was OK with you). Did you actually
>> read Alan's arguments? Do you agree with ip that Alan doesn't know the
>> difference between facts and opinions or beliefs? What about ip?
Safire, the problem is that Alan doesn't make "arguments" in the sense
of stating independently verifiable facts; he expresses, to use his
word, *beliefs*. The difference is like night and day. "Arguments", in
this context, include facts proven beyond question by the public record
(e.g., Obama's broadcast speeches, Ezekiel Emanuel's >200 largely
peer-reviewed documents, the health care bill, the Constitution, plus
http://www.cbo.gov/
http://www.politico.com/
http://www.census.gov/
http://www.stratfor.com/
http://www.snopes.com/snopes.asp
http://www.factcheck.org/
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html
Videos of politicians’ and public figures’ lips moving, in full context.
Published acknowledgment by any news source of their own mistakes or lies.
Broadcast campaign debates and speeches.
Verbatim transcripts from credible and verifiable sources.
You will notice that I do not include any TV or TR media as sources;
they provide heads-up, not irrefutable sources.
As I explained at length up front, Alan's apparent inability to
distinguish facts from beliefs/opinions is not a "claim", or an insult,
or character assassination; it is a simple, direct observation which he
has often supported in various versions of these recent quotes regarding
hard facts:
• "Your "facts" don't even make sense in my world view",
• "well meaning people can hold different points of view", and
• "We'll have to agree to disagree" (i.e., "beliefs trump facts"),
and has very often refused to believe easily-proven facts devoid of
opinion or ambiguity. Recent examples include his refusal to believe
that Obama's speeches or Emanuel's peer-reviewed medical journal
publications or the health care plans or CBO public comments actually
did include statements readily available in visual public records. i.e.,
He repeatedly denies the very *existence* of readily accessible moving
lips or printed words or numbers which conflict with his beliefs.
I.P.
Ronju99
> ron wrote:
> > safire wrote
> >> 3. Most absurd: he claims Alan doesn't recognize the difference between
> >> facts and beliefs (now that's really an insult and character
> >> assassination, but that apparently was OK with you). Did you actually
> >> read Alan's arguments? Do you agree with ip that Alan doesn't know the
> >> difference between facts and opinions or beliefs? What about ip?
>
> Safire, the problem is that Alan doesn't make "arguments" in the sense
> of stating independently verifiable facts; he expresses, to use his
> word, *beliefs*. The difference is like night and day. "Arguments", in
> this context, include facts proven beyond question by the public record
> (e.g., Obama's broadcast speeches, Ezekiel Emanuel's >200 largely
> Videos of politicians’ and public figures’ lips moving, in full context.
> Published acknowledgment by any news source of their own mistakes or lies.
> Broadcast campaign debates and speeches.
> Verbatim transcripts from credible and verifiable sources.
>
> You will notice that I do not include any TV or TR media as sources;
> they provide heads-up, not irrefutable sources.
>
> As I explained at length up front, Alan's apparent inability to
> distinguish facts from beliefs/opinions is not a "claim", or an insult,
> or character assassination; it is a simple, direct observation which he
> has often supported in various versions of these recent quotes regarding
> hard facts:
> • "Your "facts" don't even make sense in my world view",
> • "well meaning people can hold different points of view", and
> • "We'll have to agree to disagree" (i.e., "beliefs trump facts"),
> and has very often refused to believe easily-proven facts devoid of
> opinion or ambiguity. Recent examples include his refusal to believe
> that Obama's speeches or Emanuel's peer-reviewed medical journal
> publications or the health care plans or CBO public comments actually
> did include statements readily available in visual public records. i.e.,
> He repeatedly denies the very *existence* of readily accessible moving
> lips or printed words or numbers which conflict with his beliefs.
>
> I.P.
Another way to describe Alan and many others is they are (conventional
thinkers) ; http://vocabulary-vocabulary.com/dictionary/conventional.php.
They are not accustomed to thinking outside the box. When someone like
IP challenges their beliefs they feel threatened and usually respond
by attacking the source rather than looking at the merits of the
information presented. You can readily see that from many of the
responders to this thread.
Ron S.
I.P. Freely
> Another way to describe Alan and many others is they are (conventional
> thinkers) ; http://vocabulary-vocabulary.com/dictionary/conventional.php.
> They are not accustomed to thinking outside the box. When someone like
> IP challenges their beliefs they feel threatened and usually respond
> by attacking the source rather than looking at the merits of the
> information presented. You can readily see that from many of the
> responders to this thread.
Thank goodness, and to Alan's great credit, he does not react that way
readily, if at all. The others, however, are typical examples of what
internet anonymity has done to civil discourse. In a couple of forums in
which I use my real identity, the baseless personal attack posts on
conservatives run into the thousands and include death wishes, in
response to even the most modest questioning of such sacred cows as
global warming, national health care, gun control, open borders, rampant
entitlements, terrorist coddling, hope, change, or government funding of
abortion* (the default government position, by law, unless specifically
excluded. That's why the Stupak amendment was so crucial, and why his
constituents forced him to fuhgheddabout another term after he caved to
the administration's direct pressure on him and extreme collateral
pressure on his family).
* Which, BTW, Alan, Illinois Senator Obama passionately advocated, in
fact virtually demanded on the senate floor at great length, that
healthy babies which survived partial birth abortion must be left
untended to expire on the slab like so much meat. He had a perfectly
good reason: "It's what the mother wanted." Google Obama's 2001 and 2002
floor speeches from the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act debate;
they're in the public record, whether you believe it or not.
Here's a tip for anyone who uses his real identity online and needs to
stifle some of the baseless ad hominem from cowardly anonymous
assaultmeisters rather than just PLONK the miscreants. You can often
Google up their real identities, from which point their personal data is
on display. One such fellow, a CEO doing business over a quarter of the
U.S., had a forum's corporate owner delete a whole thread, then quickly
disappeared from the internet altogether after I left zero doubt that I
knew -- and was ready to publish if he didn't cease and desist the libel
-- his home addresses and phone numbers, his marriage and divorce
records, his adult children's names and addresses, closeup Google Earth
photos of his primary and summer homes, detailed corporate records
including corporate and client personnel rosters and contracts, and much
more, all from public records. All this took less than an hour to dig
up, free, with no more expertise than Googling up Obama's speeches and
health care czar Emanuel's publications and science czar Holdren's
strong, extensive, published support of eugenics. The funny part? His
"deleted" attacks are still readily available in Google archives.
Pseudonyms are simpler.
I.P.