5 String Barf

[JoeSpareBedroom]

Stopped at my favorite music store the other day for strings, and the owner
did his usual quiet sales pitch, hoping to plant a seed in my brain for an
upcoming purchase. "Hey - you got a few extra minutes? Play this - you've
been talking about a 5-string for a while...". Hands me a Pedulla. Amazing
sustain, nice physical balance to the instrument, but the five or six lowest
notes on the B string sounded like ass (as my son would say). The amps were
being rearranged at the moment and the place was a mess, so the only thing
convenient to plug into was a 1x12 thing - might've been an Ampeg.

My normal setup involves an Ampeg head, a 2x10 Eden cabinet, and a 1x15 Mesa
cabinet. Should this be sufficient to produce decent sound from the low B
string of whatever I eventually end up with? Most of the time, when I hear
other people playing on the B string, I hear mud and not much else.

[Ballroom Dancer]

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JamZh.7667$ya1.3017@news02.roc.ny...
> Stopped at my favorite music store the other day for strings, and the
> owner did his usual quiet sales pitch, hoping to plant a seed in my brain
> for an upcoming purchase. "Hey - you got a few extra minutes? Play this -
> you've been talking about a 5-string for a while...". Hands me a Pedulla.
> Amazing sustain, nice physical balance to the instrument, but the five or
> six lowest notes on the B string sounded like ass (as my son would say).
> The amps were being rearranged at the moment and the place was a mess, so
> the only thing convenient to plug into was a 1x12 thing - might've been an
> Ampeg.
>
> My normal setup involves an Ampeg head, a 2x10 Eden cabinet, and a 1x15
> Mesa cabinet. Should this be sufficient to produce decent sound from the
> low B string of whatever I eventually end up with? Most of the time, when
> I hear other people playing on the B string, I hear mud and not much else.
My normal setup is a Trace head, 2x10 and 1x15 Trace cabinets. The low B
string of my Epi Les Paul sounds good, although it does have a bit of
difference on the higher frets from playing the same note on the E string.
I have a little practice amp that is a 65 watt Trace into a 12, it does NOT
sound good on the low B string.

Jim

[Brian Running]

> Hands me a Pedulla. Amazing
> sustain, nice physical balance to the instrument, but the five or six lowest
> notes on the B string sounded like ass (as my son would say). The amps were
> being rearranged at the moment and the place was a mess, so the only thing
> convenient to plug into was a 1x12 thing - might've been an Ampeg.

I'd be willing to bet it's the amp, Joe. It takes something that a lot
of amps don't have to do the lowest notes on a fiver. Pedullas are so
pretty, is he willing to make you a good deal?

[JoeSpareBedroom]

"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:eRsZh.2400$tp5.2174@newssvr23.news.prodigy.ne t...
>> Hands me a Pedulla. Amazing sustain, nice physical balance to the
>> instrument, but the five or six lowest notes on the B string sounded like
>> ass (as my son would say). The amps were being rearranged at the moment
>> and the place was a mess, so the only thing convenient to plug into was a
>> 1x12 thing - might've been an Ampeg.
>
> I'd be willing to bet it's the amp, Joe. It takes something that a lot of
> amps don't have to do the lowest notes on a fiver. Pedullas are so
> pretty, is he willing to make you a good deal?


At the moment, I'm choosing between cancelling my health insurance and
keeping my house. He'd have to offer me some deal.

[Brian Running]

> At the moment, I'm choosing between cancelling my health insurance and
> keeping my house. He'd have to offer me some deal.

Yeah! Health insurance! One of my favorite topics. Right now, I'm at
$919 per month with a $5000 deductible, with no prescription coverage.
Which means there is no realistic probability of ever actually receiving
any benefit from it, unless I become catastrophically ill. How's yours?

[JoeSpareBedroom]

"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:f%sZh.6839$rO7.3114@newssvr25.news.prodigy.ne t...
>> At the moment, I'm choosing between cancelling my health insurance and
>> keeping my house. He'd have to offer me some deal.
>
> Yeah! Health insurance! One of my favorite topics. Right now, I'm at
> $919 per month with a $5000 deductible, with no prescription coverage.
> Which means there is no realistic probability of ever actually receiving
> any benefit from it, unless I become catastrophically ill. How's yours?


$338, but only because I'm covered by COBRA for a little longer. Then, it
goes to $650-ish. My employer just announced a round of massive pay cuts,
due to circumstances I can't go into detail about. My budget is officially
toast. Burnt toast.

But, I had a ball playing out last night. And again tonight. :-)

[Neil N]

On Apr 30, 5:14 pm, Brian Running <brunn...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote:
> > At the moment, I'm choosing between cancelling my health insurance and
> > keeping my house. He'd have to offer me some deal.
>
> Yeah! Health insurance! One of my favorite topics. Right now, I'm at
> $919 per month with a $5000 deductible, with no prescription coverage.
> Which means there is no realistic probability of ever actually receiving
> any benefit from it, unless I become catastrophically ill. How's yours?

Pretty good actually. Thanks for asking.
You know, lots of gigs in Canada for lawyers, Brian ...

[Guitarmakermark]

On Apr 30, 6:29 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<< Most of the time, when I hear other people playing on the B string,
I hear mud and not much else.>>

My two cents......My low B-string didn't sound very clear at all,
until I upgraded to a 4X10 cab....then even better with two 4X10's.

Seems the 10-inch speakers, times 4 or 8, do a better job at clearly
reproducing the lowest notes than say, a 15-inch speaker. In my first
setup, my 2x10 stacked on my 1x15 does not sound as clear, down low,
as the single 4x10. Nevermind the two 4x10's together, which is pure
heaven, (Sonic Majesty,) for which I am very grateful..........

Mark

[JoeSpareBedroom]

"Guitarmakermark" <Guitarmakermark@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177974912.885861.259280@l77g2000hsb.googlegr oups.com...
> On Apr 30, 6:29 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> << Most of the time, when I hear other people playing on the B string,
> I hear mud and not much else.>>
>
> My two cents......My low B-string didn't sound very clear at all,
> until I upgraded to a 4X10 cab....then even better with two 4X10's.
>
> Seems the 10-inch speakers, times 4 or 8, do a better job at clearly
> reproducing the lowest notes than say, a 15-inch speaker. In my first
> setup, my 2x10 stacked on my 1x15 does not sound as clear, down low,
> as the single 4x10. Nevermind the two 4x10's together, which is pure
> heaven, (Sonic Majesty,) for which I am very grateful..........
>
> Mark
>

4x10 isn't an option for me (yet), for a silliest reason of all: I can't fit
them in my vehicle.

[Kloka-mo']

I can't fit a 4x10 in my car, and I couldn't be happier.

My Pedulla is nice. Extremely pretty. The B is JUST acceptable. Don't
read that wrong, it fine. Works, no problem. J2000 5 string. Paid $2250.
I could have saved a GRAND and gotten a Fender Roscoe Beck that didn't need
batteries, and I wouldn't be afraid of chipping/denting.

The frets (or lack thereof) on a Pedulla is the ONE thing that sets them
apart though, in my opinion. Oh, and it IS a good neck. Wide spaced option
ROCKS (standard on an RB).

You could get a custom LeCompte for less (I bet).

--
-rob Bartlett, TN
O>
/(\)
^^
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:F4vZh.7577$B25.5509@news01.roc.ny...
> "Guitarmakermark" <Guitarmakermark@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1177974912.885861.259280@l77g2000hsb.googlegr oups.com...
>> On Apr 30, 6:29 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> << Most of the time, when I hear other people playing on the B string,
>> I hear mud and not much else.>>
>>
>> My two cents......My low B-string didn't sound very clear at all,
>> until I upgraded to a 4X10 cab....then even better with two 4X10's.
>>
>> Seems the 10-inch speakers, times 4 or 8, do a better job at clearly
>> reproducing the lowest notes than say, a 15-inch speaker. In my first
>> setup, my 2x10 stacked on my 1x15 does not sound as clear, down low,
>> as the single 4x10. Nevermind the two 4x10's together, which is pure
>> heaven, (Sonic Majesty,) for which I am very grateful..........
>>
>> Mark
>>
>
> 4x10 isn't an option for me (yet), for a silliest reason of all: I can't
> fit them in my vehicle.
>

[Kloka-mo']

"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:f%sZh.6839$rO7.3114@newssvr25.news.prodigy.ne t...
>> At the moment, I'm choosing between cancelling my health insurance and
>> keeping my house. He'd have to offer me some deal.
>
> Yeah! Health insurance! One of my favorite topics. Right now, I'm at
> $919 per month with a $5000 deductible, with no prescription coverage.
> Which means there is no realistic probability of ever actually receiving
> any benefit from it, unless I become catastrophically ill. How's yours?


My health insurance was paid for with the lives of those who have gone
before me.

(wow, that came out fairly... strong eh?) Yikes!
--
-rob Bartlett, TN
O>
/(\)
^^

[js]

I'm still paying some big bills from when I was really sick a few years ago
and didn't have insurance.

Every once in awhile I get some asshole from collections calling me asking
when I'm going to "fulfill my obligation" or some such BS - like I went on a
spending spree in the mall of something:

"Yeah sorry chief. Heart transplants were on sale that week and well, I
couldn't help myself. I tried to return it, but they only offered me
hospital credit..." Alright asshole, you're only getting $1.00 a month from
now on...

ONLY in America can we be FOR taxing fat people because "they raise our
insurance rates", yet AGAINST universal health coverage...



And no, it's not "socialism". There is absolutely NO reason that we cannot
offer a base level of health care to every American using our EXISTING
network of private insurance companies. No reason at all...except that it's
not as profitable as gouging the hell out of the fraction of plebeians that
can afford insurance, I guess...

--
Check out my band, West Eats Meat http://www.myspace.com/westeatsmeat

My Homepage, Back By Popular Demand: http://www.jmsjazz.com

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it
comes out."

- Bill Hicks









"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:f%sZh.6839$rO7.3114@newssvr25.news.prodigy.ne t...
> > At the moment, I'm choosing between cancelling my health insurance and
> > keeping my house. He'd have to offer me some deal.
>
> Yeah! Health insurance! One of my favorite topics. Right now, I'm at
> $919 per month with a $5000 deductible, with no prescription coverage.
> Which means there is no realistic probability of ever actually receiving
> any benefit from it, unless I become catastrophically ill. How's yours?

[Benj]

Brian Running wrote:
> > Hands me a Pedulla. Amazing
> > sustain, nice physical balance to the instrument, but the five or six lowest
> > notes on the B string sounded like ass (as my son would say). The amps were
> > being rearranged at the moment and the place was a mess, so the only thing
> > convenient to plug into was a 1x12 thing - might've been an Ampeg.
>
> I'd be willing to bet it's the amp, Joe. It takes something that a lot
> of amps don't have to do the lowest notes on a fiver. Pedullas are so
> pretty, is he willing to make you a good deal?

Yeah, I'd have to agree. I've never heard a Pedulla that actually
sounded like ass! Maybe not an Ultimate B but certainly passable! I
had the chance during the last GAS episode to chose Pedulla, but I
didn't. I wasn't overwhelmed by it. I picked the G&L fretless. But
generally speaking the key to a great 5 string is the B. Not only
should the low tones work well, but the notes above the 5th fret on
the B should sound exactly like same notes on the E string. The
difference between the two is the measure of how close to "great" the
bass is!

Benj

[Mike Rieves]

"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:f%sZh.6839$rO7.3114@newssvr25.news.prodigy.ne t...
>> At the moment, I'm choosing between cancelling my health insurance and
>> keeping my house. He'd have to offer me some deal.
>
> Yeah! Health insurance! One of my favorite topics. Right now, I'm at
> $919 per month with a $5000 deductible, with no prescription coverage.
> Which means there is no realistic probability of ever actually receiving
> any benefit from it, unless I become catastrophically ill. How's yours?

Ours is non-existant, there is none that we can afford.

[Mike Rieves]

"js" <NOSPAM@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4636cdc1$0$9887$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> I'm still paying some big bills from when I was really sick a few years
> ago
> and didn't have insurance.
>
> Every once in awhile I get some asshole from collections calling me asking
> when I'm going to "fulfill my obligation" or some such BS - like I went on
> a
> spending spree in the mall of something:
>
> "Yeah sorry chief. Heart transplants were on sale that week and well, I
> couldn't help myself. I tried to return it, but they only offered me
> hospital credit..." Alright asshole, you're only getting $1.00 a month
> from
> now on...
>
> ONLY in America can we be FOR taxing fat people because "they raise our
> insurance rates", yet AGAINST universal health coverage...
>
>
>
> And no, it's not "socialism". There is absolutely NO reason that we cannot
> offer a base level of health care to every American using our EXISTING
> network of private insurance companies. No reason at all...except that
> it's
> not as profitable as gouging the hell out of the fraction of plebeians
> that
> can afford insurance, I guess...
>
Tennessee did that for several years, it was called Tenncare and it worked
by using the health care funding to pay insurance premiums for the people it
covered, rather than pay medical costs dorectly. It worked well until the
insurance lobby got enough politicians in its pocket (including a governer)
to destroy it. The best part was that virtually everyone who was uninsurable
could get it and the premiums were based oin income, so it was affordable.
Now just about the only people who can get Tenncare are the illegal aliens.

[col.starbuck@gmail.com]

On May 1, 1:15 am, "Mike Rieves" <m...@hotspam.com> wrote:
> "js" <NOS...@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4636cdc1$0$9887$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> > I'm still paying some big bills from when I was really sick a few years
> > ago
> > and didn't have insurance.
>
> > Every once in awhile I get some asshole from collections calling me asking
> > when I'm going to "fulfill my obligation" or some such BS - like I went on
> > a
> > spending spree in the mall of something:
>
> > "Yeah sorry chief. Heart transplants were on sale that week and well, I
> > couldn't help myself. I tried to return it, but they only offered me
> > hospital credit..." Alright asshole, you're only getting $1.00 a month
> > from
> > now on...
>
> > ONLY in America can we be FOR taxing fat people because "they raise our
> > insurance rates", yet AGAINST universal health coverage...
>
> > And no, it's not "socialism". There is absolutely NO reason that we cannot
> > offer a base level of health care to every American using our EXISTING
> > network of private insurance companies. No reason at all...except that
> > it's
> > not as profitable as gouging the hell out of the fraction of plebeians
> > that
> > can afford insurance, I guess...
>
> Tennessee did that for several years, it was called Tenncare and it worked
> by using the health care funding to pay insurance premiums for the people it
> covered, rather than pay medical costs dorectly. It worked well until the
> insurance lobby got enough politicians in its pocket (including a governer)
> to destroy it. The best part was that virtually everyone who was uninsurable
> could get it and the premiums were based oin income, so it was affordable.
> Now just about the only people who can get Tenncare are the illegal aliens.

If you think that's bad, I just got a $500 paramedic services/
ambulance bill from a February trip to the hospital. I don't know if
my insurance covers it, but I'm going to submit it anyway so I can buy
myself some time to scrape up $500. Oh, and I'm still paying the $2K
deductible that resulted from that trip to the hospital. Where's my
damn tax refund when I need it? And why can't our firm also offer a
mid-year bonus in addition to a Christmas bonus? Wahhhh.

Starbuck

[Brian Running]

> My health insurance was paid for with the lives of those who have gone
> before me.
>
> (wow, that came out fairly... strong eh?) Yikes!

I won't take that the wrong way if you don't take this the wrong way --
your health insurance was paid for with a part of my federal income
taxes. We can't use lives to pay insurance premiums, not yet, anyway.

[5 String]

Kloka-mo' wrote:
> I can't fit a 4x10 in my car, and I couldn't be happier.
>
> My Pedulla is nice. Extremely pretty. The B is JUST acceptable. Don't
> read that wrong, it fine. Works, no problem. J2000 5 string. Paid $2250.
> I could have saved a GRAND and gotten a Fender Roscoe Beck that didn't need
> batteries, and I wouldn't be afraid of chipping/denting.
>

Of course now that the Roscoe Beck Fives do not appear in the Fender
Catalog, you might think twice about the chips and dings thing.... I do
love mine though.

--
> www.google.com <enter> <
> search<insert query here> <enter> <
> <
> avoiding newsgroup wiseasses.... PRICELESS. <
> <
> For some things there is usenet <
> For everything else there is google............. <

[Benj]

Brian Running wrote:
> I won't take that the wrong way if you don't take this the wrong way --
> your health insurance was paid for with a part of my federal income
> taxes. We can't use lives to pay insurance premiums, not yet, anyway.

Soilent Green?

[Kloka-mo']

"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1178060874.569452.149260@h2g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Brian Running wrote:
>> I won't take that the wrong way if you don't take this the wrong way --
>> your health insurance was paid for with a part of my federal income
>> taxes. We can't use lives to pay insurance premiums, not yet, anyway.

Douchet'! (touche' with a twist?!?!) Sorry, that's all I have tonight.

>
> Soilent Green?
>

Doh! Busted again!

--
-rob Bartlett, TN
O>
/(\)
^^

[Brian Running]

> Of course now that the Roscoe Beck Fives do not appear in the Fender
> Catalog, you might think twice about the chips and dings thing.... I do
> love mine though.

The Roscoe Beck bass was a great idea that was very poorly executed.
Pickups and electronics are fantastic, but the huge, clunky neck, giant
heavy slab of a body and that enormous block at the neck heel create an
uncomfortable hard-to-play instrument. Plus, it has Fender's
traditional Soviet-era industrial styling, with exposed screw heads and
crude-looking scratchplates -- Roscoe should get a company like Pedulla
or Spector to use the pickups and electronics in a really
pretty-looking, sweet-playing bass.

[Jim Carr]

"js" <NOSPAM@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4636cdc1$0$9887$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> And no, it's not "socialism". There is absolutely NO reason that we cannot
> offer a base level of health care to every American using our EXISTING
> network of private insurance companies. No reason at all...except that
> it's
> not as profitable as gouging the hell out of the fraction of plebeians
> that
> can afford insurance, I guess...

Actually, there *is* a reason. In this country we have four basic methods of
paying for healthcare.

* Self-Pay - Generally speaking only the poor and rich pay out of pocket for
healthcare. There's no administrative overhead since there is no middle-man.

* Medicaid/Medicare - The government acts like an insurer. They pay the
doctor a fixed percentage of what they consider the reasonable fee for the
service. The consumer may have to pick up the rest. As I understand it the
administrative overhead is around 3% to 5%.

* VA - This is socialized medicine. The doctors are on the government
payroll. The overhead here is 5% to 7%.

* Private Insurance - This is what most of us deal with. You pay a premium
to the insurance companies who pay the doctors. Your out of pocket expense
varies. The adminstrative overhead is 25% to 30%.

Can you imagine what the overhead will go to if the governmen starts paying
premiums? Just adding them to the equation will probably add another 5% or
more. Beyond that the insurance companies will probably increase their
overhead.

Having the government pay private insurers is not very cost effective at
all.

[Mike Rieves]

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:b26_h.17907$ZD3.1264@newsfe01.lga...
> "js" <NOSPAM@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4636cdc1$0$9887$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>> And no, it's not "socialism". There is absolutely NO reason that we
>> cannot
>> offer a base level of health care to every American using our EXISTING
>> network of private insurance companies. No reason at all...except that
>> it's
>> not as profitable as gouging the hell out of the fraction of plebeians
>> that
>> can afford insurance, I guess...
>
> Actually, there *is* a reason. In this country we have four basic methods
> of paying for healthcare.
>
> * Self-Pay - Generally speaking only the poor and rich pay out of pocket
> for healthcare. There's no administrative overhead since there is no
> middle-man.
>
> * Medicaid/Medicare - The government acts like an insurer. They pay the
> doctor a fixed percentage of what they consider the reasonable fee for the
> service. The consumer may have to pick up the rest. As I understand it the
> administrative overhead is around 3% to 5%.
>
> * VA - This is socialized medicine. The doctors are on the government
> payroll. The overhead here is 5% to 7%.
>
> * Private Insurance - This is what most of us deal with. You pay a premium
> to the insurance companies who pay the doctors. Your out of pocket expense
> varies. The adminstrative overhead is 25% to 30%.
>
> Can you imagine what the overhead will go to if the governmen starts
> paying premiums? Just adding them to the equation will probably add
> another 5% or more. Beyond that the insurance companies will probably
> increase their overhead.
>
> Having the government pay private insurers is not very cost effective at
> all.
What's your solution?

[Jim Carr]

"Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
news:6pc_h.7300$TD3.4713@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

> What's your solution?

Socialized medicine. This country already has a fantastic infrastructure
when it comes to healthcare, which is an advantage over other countries that
never had a free market healthcare system. We would still have independent
doctors - plenty of them, really. We wouldn't have the "problems" that other
countries with socialized medicine have such as long waits for elective
surgery.

Mike, you *do* realize this will cost people jobs, right? All that
adminstrative overhead will be reduced dramatically.

[ptooner]

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:Zqr_h.127288$mJ1.12851@newsfe22.lga...
> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
> news:6pc_h.7300$TD3.4713@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>> What's your solution?
>
> Socialized medicine. This country already has a fantastic infrastructure
> when it comes to healthcare, which is an advantage over other countries
> that never had a free market healthcare system. We would still have
> independent doctors - plenty of them, really. We wouldn't have the
> "problems" that other countries with socialized medicine have such as long
> waits for elective surgery.

Huh???? Why not??? Most doctors are dedicated individuals. They have to be
to survive the 70 hour week that is common. Do you think they would do that
on a salary? Any salary? You say we would still have independent doctors -
but who would pay for them? Are you really proposing free health care for
the poor while the rest of us continue exactly as we are?? We have
something pretty similar to that now.
>
> Mike, you *do* realize this will cost people jobs, right? All that
> adminstrative overhead will be reduced dramatically.
>
I must have missed something (I confess I wasn't reading this thread). Are
you suggesting that creating a government bureaucratic agency would cost
people jobs and cut down on administrative overhead? Surely I must be
misunderstanding something here.

Gerry

[Jim Carr]

"ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
news:V7u_h.17835$Pq5.6120@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. .

> Huh???? Why not??? Most doctors are dedicated individuals. They have to
> be to survive the 70 hour week that is common. Do you think they would do
> that on a salary? Any salary?

Why do you assume that they *have* to be on salary? How do other countries
manage to make it work?

> You say we would still have independent doctors - but who would pay for
> them?

You'll still need them for elective surgery. How do other countries make it
work?

>Are you really proposing free health care for the poor while the rest of us
>continue exactly as we are?? We have something pretty similar to that now.

Actually, we don't. Poor people misusing emergency rooms for routine
healthcare and then not being able to pay is not free healthcare for the
poor. Everybody suffers in those situations. It costs a lot more to provide
non-critical routine treatment in an emergency facility and chase people for
payment than it does to provide them with a free clinic.

> I must have missed something (I confess I wasn't reading this thread).
> Are you suggesting that creating a government bureaucratic agency would
> cost people jobs and cut down on administrative overhead? Surely I must
> be misunderstanding something here.

Yes, you did miss something. Here's a quick review: Medicare's
administrative overhead is 3% to 5%. The VA, which is truly socialized
medicine, is 5% to 7%. Private insurance is 25% to 30%. Believe it or not,
there are *some* things that the government does better.

Here's the thing that folks seem to forget. One way or another the vast
majority are getting healthcare in this country. Right now the overhead is
extremely high in the *private* sector. The people paying their health
insurance premiums or footing their own medical bills are subsidizing those
who can't pay. Tax dollars are also spent on those who can't pay.

There are many who go without routine care because they can't afford it. I
think that sucks. We all know that problems are much less expensive to treat
sooner rather than later. Ultimately we're not denying them this critical
care, so we're paying for a tooth extraction and a bridge for a $1,000
instead of a $40 filling.

The way we are going about it now is extremely expensive and wasteful, and
people suffer in the process. The only ones not complaining are the
insurance companies. Everybody is pretty unhappy.

[Mike Rieves]

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:Zqr_h.127288$mJ1.12851@newsfe22.lga...
> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
> news:6pc_h.7300$TD3.4713@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>> What's your solution?
>
> Socialized medicine. This country already has a fantastic infrastructure
> when it comes to healthcare, which is an advantage over other countries
> that never had a free market healthcare system. We would still have
> independent doctors - plenty of them, really. We wouldn't have the
> "problems" that other countries with socialized medicine have such as long
> waits for elective surgery.
>
> Mike, you *do* realize this will cost people jobs, right? All that
> adminstrative overhead will be reduced dramatically.

Wow, I never thought to see you espousing socialized madicine, or, are you
just funning me because I'm an ignorant southern boy?
I think everyone should be entitled to basic healthcare, and I have a good
start on a solution, just end the war in Iraq and take the money being spend
on it and put it into healthcare, eliminate the drug industry and insurance
industry lobbies and make our representatives actually represent we, the
people.
Too simple for ya Jim? "It's a very complex issue, blah, blah, blah..."
I'll larn ya to use "blah, blah, blah" in a debate with me. :-)

[Mike Rieves]

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:68w_h.111985$cJ1.527@newsfe13.lga...
> "ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
> news:V7u_h.17835$Pq5.6120@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. .
>
>> Huh???? Why not??? Most doctors are dedicated individuals. They have to
>> be to survive the 70 hour week that is common. Do you think they would
>> do that on a salary? Any salary?
>
> Why do you assume that they *have* to be on salary? How do other countries
> manage to make it work?
>
>> You say we would still have independent doctors - but who would pay for
>> them?
>
> You'll still need them for elective surgery. How do other countries make
> it work?
>
>>Are you really proposing free health care for the poor while the rest of
>>us continue exactly as we are?? We have something pretty similar to that
>>now.
>
> Actually, we don't. Poor people misusing emergency rooms for routine
> healthcare and then not being able to pay is not free healthcare for the
> poor. Everybody suffers in those situations. It costs a lot more to
> provide non-critical routine treatment in an emergency facility and chase
> people for payment than it does to provide them with a free clinic.
>
>> I must have missed something (I confess I wasn't reading this thread).
>> Are you suggesting that creating a government bureaucratic agency would
>> cost people jobs and cut down on administrative overhead? Surely I must
>> be misunderstanding something here.
>
> Yes, you did miss something. Here's a quick review: Medicare's
> administrative overhead is 3% to 5%. The VA, which is truly socialized
> medicine, is 5% to 7%. Private insurance is 25% to 30%. Believe it or not,
> there are *some* things that the government does better.
>
> Here's the thing that folks seem to forget. One way or another the vast
> majority are getting healthcare in this country. Right now the overhead is
> extremely high in the *private* sector. The people paying their health
> insurance premiums or footing their own medical bills are subsidizing
> those who can't pay. Tax dollars are also spent on those who can't pay.
>
> There are many who go without routine care because they can't afford it. I
> think that sucks. We all know that problems are much less expensive to
> treat sooner rather than later. Ultimately we're not denying them this
> critical care, so we're paying for a tooth extraction and a bridge for a
> $1,000 instead of a $40 filling.
>
> The way we are going about it now is extremely expensive and wasteful, and
> people suffer in the process. The only ones not complaining are the
> insurance companies. Everybody is pretty unhappy.

Well said, Jim! You make a very good case, and I agree with you one
hundred percent. You do realize that you're going to get a lot of flack for
this don't you? It won't be from me, though. I'll have to make it a point
to quit picking at you so much...

[ptooner]

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:68w_h.111985$cJ1.527@newsfe13.lga...
> "ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
> news:V7u_h.17835$Pq5.6120@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. .
>
>> Huh???? Why not??? Most doctors are dedicated individuals. They have to
>> be to survive the 70 hour week that is common. Do you think they would
>> do that on a salary? Any salary?
>
> Why do you assume that they *have* to be on salary? How do other countries
> manage to make it work?

They put them on salary. AND, it doesn't really work very well - at least
not to my knowledge and I can only report anecdotal evidence from friends
who live in other countries.

>
>> You say we would still have independent doctors - but who would pay for
>> them?
>
> You'll still need them for elective surgery. How do other countries make
> it work?

I don't know. Do you? I am under the impression that "socialised medicine"
in some countries is very similar to the public health clinics in this
country. That is, it's a place for people who can't afford the higher
quality private health care.

>
>>Are you really proposing free health care for the poor while the rest of
>>us continue exactly as we are?? We have something pretty similar to that
>>now.
>
> Actually, we don't. Poor people misusing emergency rooms for routine
> healthcare and then not being able to pay is not free healthcare for the
> poor. Everybody suffers in those situations. It costs a lot more to
> provide non-critical routine treatment in an emergency facility and chase
> people for payment than it does to provide them with a free clinic.

Actually, we do.

>
>> I must have missed something (I confess I wasn't reading this thread).
>> Are you suggesting that creating a government bureaucratic agency would
>> cost people jobs and cut down on administrative overhead? Surely I must
>> be misunderstanding something here.
>
> Yes, you did miss something. Here's a quick review: Medicare's
> administrative overhead is 3% to 5%. The VA, which is truly socialized
> medicine, is 5% to 7%. Private insurance is 25% to 30%. Believe it or not,
> there are *some* things that the government does better.

That's pretty hard to believe. I'd start by doubtint your figures -
especially in regard to Medicare.

>
> Here's the thing that folks seem to forget. One way or another the vast
> majority are getting healthcare in this country. Right now the overhead is
> extremely high in the *private* sector. The people paying their health
> insurance premiums or footing their own medical bills are subsidizing
> those who can't pay. Tax dollars are also spent on those who can't pay.

I think I said that above.

>
> There are many who go without routine care because they can't afford it. I
> think that sucks.

Yep

We all know that problems are much less expensive to treat
> sooner rather than later.

Yep

Ultimately we're not denying them this critical
> care, so we're paying for a tooth extraction and a bridge for a $1,000
> instead of a $40 filling.
>
> The way we are going about it now is extremely expensive and wasteful, and
> people suffer in the process. The only ones not complaining are the
> insurance companies. Everybody is pretty unhappy.

Nope, I'm not particularly unhappy. Obviously, you are. I'd say that makes
it 50%. That's a long ways from "everybody". There is a large segment of
society in this country that believes "the government" should support them,
including giving them money, food, free housing, free medicine, and anything
else that people who work for it have. Unfortunately, "the government" is
not a separate thing. It has no money except what we give it. "The
government" is you and I and everyone else who votes and pay taxes..

Gerry
>
>

[Jim Carr]

"ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
news:F0y_h.24018$qB4.16306@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..

> They put them on salary. AND, it doesn't really work very well - at least
> not to my knowledge and I can only report anecdotal evidence from friends
> who live in other countries.

Okay, hold on a second. You're basically arguing, "we shouldn't socialize
medicine because if we put doctors on salaries things will be bad." Assuming
you're right about the problems, wouldn't it make more sense to *not* put
them on salary if the salary part is actually the problem?

But let's look at the VHA in this country, which *is* socialized medicine.
Check out this article:
www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html. As for how the
doctors are paid, I don't know the answer to that.

> I don't know. Do you? I am under the impression that "socialised
> medicine" in some countries is very similar to the public health clinics
> in this country. That is, it's a place for people who can't afford the
> higher quality private health care.

It's a bit more complicated and varied than that. This article does a decent
job of explaining it: www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html. What you
describe is one way of doing it. Another way is to make it compulsory
(everyone pays a direct or indirect tax). After that you can have a
government regulated monopoly on private health insurance or a free market.


> Actually, we do.

Have you ever been a bill collector? I was for a year. Trust me when I say
that these people supposedly getting "free healthcare" from emergencies
rooms and even regular doctors are paying *something*. A lot of times they
go bankrupt. They never get ahead enough to get a car loan or own a home.
So, while they may not fully pay off that $5,000 bill, it costs them in the
long run.

>> Yes, you did miss something. Here's a quick review: Medicare's
>> administrative overhead is 3% to 5%. The VA, which is truly socialized
>> medicine, is 5% to 7%. Private insurance is 25% to 30%. Believe it or
>> not, there are *some* things that the government does better.
>
> That's pretty hard to believe. I'd start by doubtint your figures -
> especially in regard to Medicare.

In Adobe click in the page number section at the bottom, type 137 and press
Enter.

www.kff.org/medicare/upload/Medicare-Chart-Book-3rd-Edition-Summer-2005-Report.pdf


> Nope, I'm not particularly unhappy. Obviously, you are. I'd say that
> makes it 50%. That's a long ways from "everybody". There is a large
> segment of society in this country that believes "the government" should
> support them, including giving them money, food, free housing, free
> medicine, and anything else that people who work for it have.
> Unfortunately, "the government" is not a separate thing. It has no money
> except what we give it. "The government" is you and I and everyone else
> who votes and pay taxes..

I find it funny that you say you're not particularly unhappy after seeing
you complaining about this "free healthcare" we provide to the poor. How can
you not be unhappy about poor people waiting for hours to get an emergency
room visit for routine care, then not paying for it?

There are many things upon which we agree to pool our money for the common
good: police, firefighters, roads, FAA, military, etc. If you looked at just
how much the government interferes with the price of oil, you'd be amazed.
Let's face it, if the the USA could meet 100% of its oil needs from within,
there's no way in hell we'd be in Iraq. You think what you pay for food is
not subsidized by the government in one way or another? My point is that we
redistribute wealth all the time in many ways, and people are okay with it
because they don't always think of it that way.

Equating universal healthcare with welfare is ridiculous. It's not that at
all. It's really more akin to the utilities. Many people got screwed when
electricity was privatized. The system we had in place before was good.
Essentially we said, "Look, we need power 100% of the time with *no*
shortages ever. We also need price stability. Who wants to follow our
guidelines and be guaranteed a reasonable profit?"

There's a simple analogy that explains it better. On an Army base you have
to feed every soldier every single day. You can't be turning them away. By
contrast a private restaurant *wants* to have a line on Friday and Saturday
nights. If they got so big as to accomodate all comers on the weekends,
their overhead would be too high to support the business during the week.
Fortunately, people can go home and eat. Soldiers cannot.

Everyone needs healthcare. Everyone. You can't just decide not to have a
heart attack. These types of universal needs can sometimes be best served by
the people agreeing to come together to implement a system. If it smacks of
socialism, then let's let everyone build their own roads, sewers, water
treatment plants, etc.

[Jim Carr]

"Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
news:bjx_h.7563$TD3.398@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

> Wow, I never thought to see you espousing socialized madicine, or, are
> you just funning me because I'm an ignorant southern boy?

If we can pay farmers not to grow certain crops to keep the food industry
from going haywire (resulting in high prices and food shortages), I don't
see why we can't find a better approach to healthcare. We *all* need it at
some point or another. Even the staunchest conservatives are not comfortable
with denying healthcare to someone who *really* needs it. So, let's just
stop dicking around and find a better way to handle it.

> I think everyone should be entitled to basic healthcare, and I have a
> good start on a solution, just end the war in Iraq and take the money
> being spend on it and put it into healthcare, eliminate the drug industry
> and insurance industry lobbies and make our representatives actually
> represent we, the people.

Eliminate the drug industry? We need them. I'm not saying the industry
couldn't be tweaked, but it *is* a high-risk, high-reward industry. I don't
see people complaining when drug companies lose hundreds of millions on a
failed drug, so I don't begrudge them their higher profits.

What does annoy me is people who complain about the price of Allegra without
having tried over the counter drugs like Claritin first. Many of the newer
drugs are no more effective than the old ones. Some have reduced
side-effects, but how many people actually try the cheap one first to see
how well they do?

As for Iraq, what we need to do is reduce our dependence on oil so that we
don't need OPEC. Many people when they look at alternatives to oil point out
that it won't replace oil. So what? We don't need to replace it, just reduce
our use. If 30 years ago Carter could have gotten this country to seriously
look for ways to reduce oil consumption, we would not be in Iraq today.

What have we spent so far? $300 billion? What if we gave three companies
$15B each to come up with ways to reduce our oil dependence, then gave a $5B
tax-free prize to the winner. We could then spend another $100B to subsidize
the market to get the newfangled widgets into the hands of consumers. We'd
still be spending half of what we spent in Iraq, when the only reason we're
there is to protect oil interests (both for greedy people and the average
Joe).

[Benj]

col.starbuck@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> If you think that's bad, I just got a $500 paramedic services/
> ambulance bill from a February trip to the hospital. I don't know if
> my insurance covers it, but I'm going to submit it anyway so I can buy
> myself some time to scrape up $500. Oh, and I'm still paying the $2K
> deductible that resulted from that trip to the hospital. Where's my
> damn tax refund when I need it? And why can't our firm also offer a
> mid-year bonus in addition to a Christmas bonus? Wahhhh.

I'm not sure what the "healthcare", as it's euphemistically called,
answer is. But I do know this much. The problem with middle men in
this process is that tends to just bring out the crook in everyone. I
remember the old days. The doctor, came to the house. Charged a few
bucks. was dedicated enough that he'd show up for an emergency. No
million dollar machines, but pretty decent medicine for the age.

Enter widespread insurance and medicare. Suddenly there is the HUGE
pot of money there for the taking. People are encouraged that
government money is "free" money. A doctor just up the road from me
here got arrested for medicare fraud. Took over a million dollars
from Uncle Sam in just one year running unnecessary tests on old
folks. But he's hardly the total problem. Big problem is that
everybody is told, "don't worry about the bill, because YOU only pay
$5 or something like that. So there is no brake on any of this.
Everyone just wallows around in a sea of money like it didn't have to
come from SOMEPLACE to begin with.

And it gets worse. You've heard these stories about hospitals sending
huge bills bankrupting self-payers, but charging a fraction of the
cost to Medicare and Insurance companies. Crap. I found out my OWN
doctor does that! He bills insurance companies at about 60% what he
was charging me! Plus, his office is like a drug company field sales
office with pharmaceutical reps coming through in a parade. He only
has office hours 3 days a week and one of those is half a day! IF
there is an emergency he just suggests you go to the emergency room.
So all the ERs are swamped with runny noses instead of gunshot wounds
and the like! :) And the problem is not just him!

I had an ear plugged by wax. I try to find an ear, nose and throat
guy. I look in the yellow pages remembering the old days when there
were pages of such guys in there. All there were was this guy who did
kids and a couple of mega-mall ENT outfits. I call try to get an
appointment. Can't see me for TWO MONTHS! NONE of these guys! I
totally have a fit! Finally the girl gets on the computer and finds a
guy who'll see me in a week. But no he won't really "see" me, because
well, I have to have all these expensive "tests" before he can look in
my friggin' ear! Finally he picks the wax out of my ear but urges
more expensive tests. I pick the cheapest one just to be on the safe
side. Results are interesting. He claims the last test shows the
opposite ear is bad compared the so-called bad ear of the first set of
tests. I refuse to have anything to do with this clown that I didn't
even get to pick in the first place...the computer picked him! Oddly
enough, eventually I did have the hyper-expensive MRI scan later for
other reasons and had them check my ears at the same time. Found no
problems at all. Bottom line: simple ear wax turned into gigantic
barf of money flow. All legal. All supposedly good careful medicine!
And I'm just ONE case. EVERYBODY gets this treatment these days.

In the old days, There'd have been a ton of doctors out there. I could
have picked one I liked out of the phone book. He'd have quickly
picked the wax out my ear, taken a look and if he thought there was a
problem ordered more investigation otherwise I go on my way. This way,
Insurance spent god know how many thousands of dollars to pick a chunk
of wax out of my ear. But it's OK because everyone agrees it's all
"FREE" money if you don't pull it out of your own pocket. But of
course that money came from somewhere!
And no doubt I paid premiums somewhere that covered it that could have
been used for something else like a bass or something. Tax money is
MUCH worse because the source of the "free" money is even more well-
hidden.

The whole problem as I see it, is that if people don't have to dig in
their own pockets to pay for something, costs just go nuts. If
McDonald's was covered by "food insurance" Big Mac's would probably
cost $500 each and you'd have to wait three months to get one! Systems
that bring out the worst human traits are not effective. This is how
the Soviet Union crashed and burned.

Benj

[JoeSpareBedroom]

"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1178276190.265529.109030@o5g2000hsb.googlegro ups.com...
>
> col.starbuck@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> If you think that's bad, I just got a $500 paramedic services/
>> ambulance bill from a February trip to the hospital. I don't know if
>> my insurance covers it, but I'm going to submit it anyway so I can buy
>> myself some time to scrape up $500. Oh, and I'm still paying the $2K
>> deductible that resulted from that trip to the hospital. Where's my
>> damn tax refund when I need it? And why can't our firm also offer a
>> mid-year bonus in addition to a Christmas bonus? Wahhhh.
>
> I'm not sure what the "healthcare", as it's euphemistically called,
> answer is. But I do know this much. The problem with middle men in
> this process is that tends to just bring out the crook in everyone. I
> remember the old days. The doctor, came to the house. Charged a few
> bucks. was dedicated enough that he'd show up for an emergency. No
> million dollar machines, but pretty decent medicine for the age.
>
> Enter widespread insurance and medicare. Suddenly there is the HUGE
> pot of money there for the taking. People are encouraged that
> government money is "free" money. A doctor just up the road from me
> here got arrested for medicare fraud. Took over a million dollars
> from Uncle Sam in just one year running unnecessary tests on old
> folks. But he's hardly the total problem. Big problem is that
> everybody is told, "don't worry about the bill, because YOU only pay
> $5 or something like that. So there is no brake on any of this.
> Everyone just wallows around in a sea of money like it didn't have to
> come from SOMEPLACE to begin with.


I agree with this, and it illustrates a problem (or seven): I don't think
insurers know what customers want. For instance, I've spoken to 3 very
experienced insurance agents to ask about what (I guess) used to be called
major medical insurance. I pay for all doctor's office visits, and the plan
pays for big stuff, like expensive tests, or time in the hospital. I can't
find it (in NY). Ridiculous. Why am I in a plan that costs $600-ish per
month, when I go to the doctor maybe 4 times a year? Twice to the internist,
who charges $65, and twice to a dermatologist who charges a little under
$100.

So, there's an insurance product missing here, and I want to buy it.

[ptooner]

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:YpE_h.7966$ya1.7538@news02.roc.ny...
> "Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
> news:1178276190.265529.109030@o5g2000hsb.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>> col.starbuck@gmail.com wrote:
>>> >
>>> If you think that's bad, I just got a $500 paramedic services/
>>> ambulance bill from a February trip to the hospital. I don't know if
>>> my insurance covers it, but I'm going to submit it anyway so I can buy
>>> myself some time to scrape up $500. Oh, and I'm still paying the $2K
>>> deductible that resulted from that trip to the hospital. Where's my
>>> damn tax refund when I need it? And why can't our firm also offer a
>>> mid-year bonus in addition to a Christmas bonus? Wahhhh.
>>
>> I'm not sure what the "healthcare", as it's euphemistically called,
>> answer is. But I do know this much. The problem with middle men in
>> this process is that tends to just bring out the crook in everyone. I
>> remember the old days. The doctor, came to the house. Charged a few
>> bucks. was dedicated enough that he'd show up for an emergency. No
>> million dollar machines, but pretty decent medicine for the age.
>>
>> Enter widespread insurance and medicare. Suddenly there is the HUGE
>> pot of money there for the taking. People are encouraged that
>> government money is "free" money. A doctor just up the road from me
>> here got arrested for medicare fraud. Took over a million dollars
>> from Uncle Sam in just one year running unnecessary tests on old
>> folks. But he's hardly the total problem. Big problem is that
>> everybody is told, "don't worry about the bill, because YOU only pay
>> $5 or something like that. So there is no brake on any of this.
>> Everyone just wallows around in a sea of money like it didn't have to
>> come from SOMEPLACE to begin with.
>
>
> I agree with this, and it illustrates a problem (or seven): I don't think
> insurers know what customers want. For instance, I've spoken to 3 very
> experienced insurance agents to ask about what (I guess) used to be called
> major medical insurance. I pay for all doctor's office visits, and the
> plan pays for big stuff, like expensive tests, or time in the hospital. I
> can't find it (in NY). Ridiculous. Why am I in a plan that costs $600-ish
> per month, when I go to the doctor maybe 4 times a year? Twice to the
> internist, who charges $65, and twice to a dermatologist who charges a
> little under $100.
>
> So, there's an insurance product missing here, and I want to buy it.
>
It's called "Catastrophic Care" coverage. Perhaps you were looking under
the wrong label?
Gerry

[JoeSpareBedroom]

"ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
news:i_L_h.1033$TG.30@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:YpE_h.7966$ya1.7538@news02.roc.ny...
>> "Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>> news:1178276190.265529.109030@o5g2000hsb.googlegro ups.com...
>>>
>>> col.starbuck@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> If you think that's bad, I just got a $500 paramedic services/
>>>> ambulance bill from a February trip to the hospital. I don't know if
>>>> my insurance covers it, but I'm going to submit it anyway so I can buy
>>>> myself some time to scrape up $500. Oh, and I'm still paying the $2K
>>>> deductible that resulted from that trip to the hospital. Where's my
>>>> damn tax refund when I need it? And why can't our firm also offer a
>>>> mid-year bonus in addition to a Christmas bonus? Wahhhh.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what the "healthcare", as it's euphemistically called,
>>> answer is. But I do know this much. The problem with middle men in
>>> this process is that tends to just bring out the crook in everyone. I
>>> remember the old days. The doctor, came to the house. Charged a few
>>> bucks. was dedicated enough that he'd show up for an emergency. No
>>> million dollar machines, but pretty decent medicine for the age.
>>>
>>> Enter widespread insurance and medicare. Suddenly there is the HUGE
>>> pot of money there for the taking. People are encouraged that
>>> government money is "free" money. A doctor just up the road from me
>>> here got arrested for medicare fraud. Took over a million dollars
>>> from Uncle Sam in just one year running unnecessary tests on old
>>> folks. But he's hardly the total problem. Big problem is that
>>> everybody is told, "don't worry about the bill, because YOU only pay
>>> $5 or something like that. So there is no brake on any of this.
>>> Everyone just wallows around in a sea of money like it didn't have to
>>> come from SOMEPLACE to begin with.
>>
>>
>> I agree with this, and it illustrates a problem (or seven): I don't think
>> insurers know what customers want. For instance, I've spoken to 3 very
>> experienced insurance agents to ask about what (I guess) used to be
>> called major medical insurance. I pay for all doctor's office visits, and
>> the plan pays for big stuff, like expensive tests, or time in the
>> hospital. I can't find it (in NY). Ridiculous. Why am I in a plan that
>> costs $600-ish per month, when I go to the doctor maybe 4 times a year?
>> Twice to the internist, who charges $65, and twice to a dermatologist who
>> charges a little under $100.
>>
>> So, there's an insurance product missing here, and I want to buy it.
>>
> It's called "Catastrophic Care" coverage. Perhaps you were looking under
> the wrong label?
> Gerry
>

Maybe, but you'd think 3 insurance agents could translate my needs into a
proper recommendation, ya know? Or, maybe not. I have a friend who's making
a fortune doing sales training. Companies of all kinds are besieged by
morons.

[ptooner]

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:7vz_h.63457$vE1.28373@newsfe24.lga...
> "ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
> news:F0y_h.24018$qB4.16306@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
>
>> They put them on salary. AND, it doesn't really work very well - at
>> least not to my knowledge and I can only report anecdotal evidence from
>> friends who live in other countries.
>
> Okay, hold on a second. You're basically arguing, "we shouldn't socialize
> medicine because if we put doctors on salaries things will be bad."
> Assuming you're right about the problems, wouldn't it make more sense to
> *not* put them on salary if the salary part is actually the problem?

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not arguing "we shouldn't socialize
> medicine because if we put doctors on salaries things will be bad." There
> are a whole string of reasons why I oppose socialized medicine but I
> believe it was you who brought up the doctors salaries. I'd like to see
> some form of limitations on the number of hours that any medical
> professional can work in a week.

>
> But let's look at the VHA in this country, which *is* socialized medicine.
> Check out this article:
> www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html. As for how the
> doctors are paid, I don't know the answer to that.

First, yes the doctors are on salary. It's not quite that simple, they get
a payback exemption in return for government sponsorship of their medical
training. They generally (GENERALLY) either had no chance at getting
through med school without government backing or they lack the ability to
get into a more prestigious practice. Also, a large percentage of their
doctors and nurses are from foreign countries where the medical training is
a bit suspect. More important, I think this is a way too specialised case
to have any real bearing on socialised medicine. Generally, VA hospitals
only get poor people as I referred to elsewhere. Don't confuse VA and DOD.
They have nothing in common, they don't even come under the same government
department.

>
>> I don't know. Do you? I am under the impression that "socialised
>> medicine" in some countries is very similar to the public health clinics
>> in this country. That is, it's a place for people who can't afford the
>> higher quality private health care.
>
> It's a bit more complicated and varied than that. This article does a
> decent job of explaining it: www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html.
> What you describe is one way of doing it. Another way is to make it
> compulsory (everyone pays a direct or indirect tax). After that you can
> have a government regulated monopoly on private health insurance or a free
> market.
>

Very interesting article. A couple of quotes from it: 1. " It costs $1,200
per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen to have access to the public
health system. This means that the average two-child family pays close to
$5,000 per year in public health insurance. This is much more expensive than
the most comprehensive private health insurance plan. " 2. "The monopoly
of basic health insurance has led to a single, homogeneous public system of
health care delivery. In such a public monopoly, bureaucratic uniformity and
lack of entrepreneurship add to the costs. The system is slow to adjust to
changing demands and new technologies. For instance, day clinics and home
care are underdeveloped as there exist basically only two types of general
hospitals: the non-profit local hospital and the university hospital. "
3. "The most visible consequence of socialized medicine in Canada is in the
poor quality of services. Health care has become more and more impersonal.
Patients often feel they are on an assembly line. Doctors and hospitals
already have more patients than they can handle and no financial incentive
to provide good service"

I think they have said it much better than I could.
>
>> Actually, we do.
>
> Have you ever been a bill collector? I was for a year. Trust me when I say
> that these people supposedly getting "free healthcare" from emergencies
> rooms and even regular doctors are paying *something*. A lot of times they
> go bankrupt. They never get ahead enough to get a car loan or own a home.
> So, while they may not fully pay off that $5,000 bill, it costs them in
> the long run.
>
>>> Yes, you did miss something. Here's a quick review: Medicare's
>>> administrative overhead is 3% to 5%. The VA, which is truly socialized
>>> medicine, is 5% to 7%. Private insurance is 25% to 30%. Believe it or
>>> not, there are *some* things that the government does better.
>>
>> That's pretty hard to believe. I'd start by doubtint your figures -
>> especially in regard to Medicare.
>
> In Adobe click in the page number section at the bottom, type 137 and
> press Enter.
>
> www.kff.org/medicare/upload/Medicare-Chart-Book-3rd-Edition-Summer-2005-Report.pdf

Sorry, that one won't work for me.

>
>
>> Nope, I'm not particularly unhappy. Obviously, you are. I'd say that
>> makes it 50%. That's a long ways from "everybody". There is a large
>> segment of society in this country that believes "the government" should
>> support them, including giving them money, food, free housing, free
>> medicine, and anything else that people who work for it have.
>> Unfortunately, "the government" is not a separate thing. It has no money
>> except what we give it. "The government" is you and I and everyone else
>> who votes and pay taxes..
>
> I find it funny that you say you're not particularly unhappy after seeing
> you complaining about this "free healthcare" we provide to the poor. How
> can you not be unhappy about poor people waiting for hours to get an
> emergency room visit for routine care, then not paying for it?

Huh??? I don't recall complaining about the free healthcare provided for
the poor. I might as well complain about the sun rising. I'm damned
unhappy about anyone (especially me) having to wait hours in an emergency
room but I've done it many times.

>
> There are many things upon which we agree to pool our money for the common
> good: police, firefighters, roads, FAA, military, etc. If you looked at
> just how much the government interferes with the price of oil, you'd be
> amazed.

No, I'm not amazed. But I don't see any relevance.

> Let's face it, if the the USA could meet 100% of its oil needs from
> within, there's no way in hell we'd be in Iraq.

Please avoid stating opinions as fact.

You think what you pay for food is
> not subsidized by the government in one way or another? My point is that
> we redistribute wealth all the time in many ways, and people are okay with
> it because they don't always think of it that way.
>
> Equating universal healthcare with welfare is ridiculous. It's not that at
> all. It's really more akin to the utilities. Many people got screwed when
> electricity was privatized. The system we had in place before was good.
> Essentially we said, "Look, we need power 100% of the time with *no*
> shortages ever. We also need price stability. Who wants to follow our
> guidelines and be guaranteed a reasonable profit?"
>
> There's a simple analogy that explains it better. On an Army base you have
> to feed every soldier every single day. You can't be turning them away. By
> contrast a private restaurant *wants* to have a line on Friday and
> Saturday nights. If they got so big as to accomodate all comers on the
> weekends, their overhead would be too high to support the business during
> the week. Fortunately, people can go home and eat. Soldiers cannot.

Actually, they can but I don't see any relevance whatsoever.

>
> Everyone needs healthcare. Everyone. You can't just decide not to have a
> heart attack. These types of universal needs can sometimes be best served
> by the people agreeing to come together to implement a system.

That is obviously your opinion. It is NOT mine.

If it smacks of socialism, then let's let everyone build their own roads,
sewers, water
> treatment plants, etc.

I'm a native American. We invented socialism. That doesn't mean that it is
good for everything.

gerry


>
>
>

[Jim Carr]

"ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
news:epM_h.1122$TG.683@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

> First, yes the doctors are on salary.

First, do you have a citation? Second, if the VHA system works well on
salary, doesn't that alleviate your concern about salaries and socialized
medicine?

>It's not quite that simple, they get a payback exemption in return for
>government sponsorship of their medical training. They generally
>(GENERALLY) either had no chance at getting through med school without
>government backing or they lack the ability to get into a more prestigious
>practice.

I don't see how their ability to get into a prestigious practice *after* med
school has anything to do with seeking financing several years earlier. What
am I missing?


>Also, a large percentage of their doctors and nurses are from foreign
>countries where the medical training is a bit suspect.

Citations, please. Are you saying the VHA is hiring poorly trained doctors
who somehow circumvent the qualifications needed to practice in the USA?

>More important, I think this is a way too specialised case to have any real
>bearing on socialised medicine. Generally, VA hospitals only get poor
>people as I referred to elsewhere. Don't confuse VA and DOD. They have
>nothing in common, they don't even come under the same government
>department.

It's actually the VHA - the Veterans Health Administration. What do you mean
by they only get poor people? And what does that have to do with whether the
only example of socialized medicine in the USA works or not?

> Very interesting article. A couple of quotes from it: 1. " It costs
> $1,200 per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen to have access to the
> public health system. This means that the average two-child family pays
> close to $5,000 per year in public health insurance. This is much more
> expensive than the most comprehensive private health insurance plan. "

Do they mean the monopolistic health insurance plan the government permits?

I recently left my job to become self-employed again. The COBRA was over
$600 per month for me and my son. It was actually less than what it would
cost to add both of us to the insurance at my wife's job. Besides that, I
don't know how much of my taxes goes to providing healthcare via Medicare
and the VHA. I'd be *thrilled* to have $100 per month taken out in taxes to
cover my basic health needs.


2. "The monopoly
> of basic health insurance has led to a single, homogeneous public system
> of health care delivery. In such a public monopoly, bureaucratic
> uniformity and lack of entrepreneurship add to the costs. The system is
> slow to adjust to changing demands and new technologies. For instance, day
> clinics and home care are underdeveloped as there exist basically only two
> types of general hospitals: the non-profit local hospital and the
> university hospital. "

There are problems with *any* system, private or otherwise. It's a matter of
weighing the pros and cons. One way of looking at it is "what best helps the
people who need it most?" Another way of looking at it is "what helps the
most people?" Still another way is "what saves the most lives?" There are
still other perspectives, some of which are at odds with each other.

> 3. "The most visible consequence of socialized medicine in Canada is in
> the poor quality of services. Health care has become more and more
> impersonal. Patients often feel they are on an assembly line. Doctors and
> hospitals already have more patients than they can handle and no financial
> incentive to provide good service"
>
> I think they have said it much better than I could.

I think #3 describes the situation in the USA as well. Someone else pointed
out the difficulty in finding a specialist. Here in Phoenix, Arizona, a big,
modern city, I was at my wits end trying to find a neurologist that could
see me any sooner than two months in the future despite my excruciating
pain.

Furthermore, a general practitioner here is paid not for his time, but based
on a comprehensive schedule of tasks. If you come in complaining of fluid in
your ear, he might be paid a relatively small amount for a "medium level
exam" for lack of a better term. If you have a little growth on your tummy
that he cuts out in five minutes, he gets paid a *lot* more for that
procedure.


>> In Adobe click in the page number section at the bottom, type 137 and
>> press Enter.
>>
>> www.kff.org/medicare/upload/Medicare-Chart-Book-3rd-Edition-Summer-2005-Report.pdf
>
> Sorry, that one won't work for me.

I don't understand? You don't have a PDF reader? Try this instead:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/11/14488/5819

>> Let's face it, if the the USA could meet 100% of its oil needs from
>> within, there's no way in hell we'd be in Iraq.
>
> Please avoid stating opinions as fact.

LOL! Sure, it's conjecture, but it's very good conjecture.

> Actually, they can but I don't see any relevance whatsoever.

That's because you're more interested in protecting your initial opinion
than trying to see things from another angle.

The short point is that the people are sometimes best served by the
government when it comes to things that *everyone* needs. When *everyone*
needs something, a totally free market can have adverse consequences. As a
people we already acknowledge this in the form of public utilities,
roadways, sewage, garbage collection, gasoline, food production, defense and
probably many others that escape me now. All have varying degrees of
government control. Healthcare is a good candidate for this type of
examination.

>> Everyone needs healthcare. Everyone. You can't just decide not to have a
>> heart attack. These types of universal needs can sometimes be best served
>> by the people agreeing to come together to implement a system.
>
> That is obviously your opinion. It is NOT mine.

Everyone needing healthcare is *not* an opinion. Not being able to decide to
have a heart attack or not is *not* an opinion. Universal needs being best
met by people coming together is *not* an opinion unless you are seriously
arguing that the police and military should operate under the free market.

> I'm a native American. We invented socialism. That doesn't mean that it
> is good for everything.

Native Americans invented socialism? Sure.

I never said it was good for everything, just *some* things.

[ptooner]

Okay, Jim last time around for me. This is way off topic and apparently you
and I are the only people interested in it.
"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:LcN_h.64060$vE1.30397@newsfe24.lga...
> "ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
> news:epM_h.1122$TG.683@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
>> First, yes the doctors are on salary.
>
> First, do you have a citation?

Are you kidding? Do you think they work for free?

Second, if the VHA system works well on
> salary, doesn't that alleviate your concern about salaries and socialized
> medicine?

I don't believe I said it worked well.

>
>>It's not quite that simple, they get a payback exemption in return for
>>government sponsorship of their medical training. They generally
>>(GENERALLY) either had no chance at getting through med school without
>>government backing or they lack the ability to get into a more prestigious
>>practice.
>
> I don't see how their ability to get into a prestigious practice *after*
> med school has anything to do with seeking financing several years
> earlier. What am I missing?

There are several different programs involved. Firstly, they can get a
government loan in med school that is combined with a contract. That one is
more often used in DOD hospitals, but sometimes VA. Second, those who
acquire regular loans to get through med school are faced with monumental
debt upon graduation. If they don't have the prospects of a high end job,
they can get special deals on repayment by government service.

>
>
>>Also, a large percentage of their doctors and nurses are from foreign
>>countries where the medical training is a bit suspect.
>
> Citations, please. Are you saying the VHA is hiring poorly trained doctors
> who somehow circumvent the qualifications needed to practice in the USA?
>
Not exactly, but essentially correct.

>>More important, I think this is a way too specialised case to have any
>>real bearing on socialised medicine. Generally, VA hospitals only get
>>poor people as I referred to elsewhere. Don't confuse VA and DOD. They
>>have nothing in common, they don't even come under the same government
>>department.
>
> It's actually the VHA - the Veterans Health Administration. What do you
> mean by they only get poor people? And what does that have to do with
> whether the only example of socialized medicine in the USA works or not?

I've never heard the term VHA, but it is a sub section under the VA
(Veterans Administration) and I don't know what that matters. I was going
to look up the income limitations for you, but their website is down
tonight. It is well below the poverty line I assure you. And I ask once
more, what makes you consider it an example of Socialized medicine? If you
were really trying to find an example in the US, the DOD hospital system
comes a lot closer to fitting that bill. BTW, I stumbled across this
reference while looking for the VA eligibility site and thought you might
find it amusing. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17957546/

>
>> Very interesting article. A couple of quotes from it: 1. " It costs
>> $1,200 per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen to have access to the
>> public health system. This means that the average two-child family pays
>> close to $5,000 per year in public health insurance. This is much more
>> expensive than the most comprehensive private health insurance plan. "
>
> Do they mean the monopolistic health insurance plan the government
> permits?

Uhhh, it was YOUR reference. They are referring to the cost of the
government operated medical system.

>
> I recently left my job to become self-employed again. The COBRA was over
> $600 per month for me and my son. It was actually less than what it would
> cost to add both of us to the insurance at my wife's job. Besides that, I
> don't know how much of my taxes goes to providing healthcare via Medicare
> and the VHA. I'd be *thrilled* to have $100 per month taken out in taxes
> to cover my basic health needs.

I think the amount that goes to Medicare is spelled out on your W2.

>
>
> 2. "The monopoly
>> of basic health insurance has led to a single, homogeneous public system
>> of health care delivery. In such a public monopoly, bureaucratic
>> uniformity and lack of entrepreneurship add to the costs. The system is
>> slow to adjust to changing demands and new technologies. For instance,
>> day clinics and home care are underdeveloped as there exist basically
>> only two types of general hospitals: the non-profit local hospital and
>> the university hospital. "
>
> There are problems with *any* system, private or otherwise. It's a matter
> of weighing the pros and cons. One way of looking at it is "what best
> helps the people who need it most?" Another way of looking at it is "what
> helps the most people?" Still another way is "what saves the most lives?"
> There are still other perspectives, some of which are at odds with each
> other.

I'm happy to see we can agree on something .;-)

>
>> 3. "The most visible consequence of socialized medicine in Canada is in
>> the poor quality of services. Health care has become more and more
>> impersonal. Patients often feel they are on an assembly line. Doctors and
>> hospitals already have more patients than they can handle and no
>> financial incentive to provide good service"
>>
>> I think they have said it much better than I could.
>
> I think #3 describes the situation in the USA as well. Someone else
> pointed out the difficulty in finding a specialist. Here in Phoenix,
> Arizona, a big, modern city, I was at my wits end trying to find a
> neurologist that could see me any sooner than two months in the future
> despite my excruciating pain.
>
> Furthermore, a general practitioner here is paid not for his time, but
> based on a comprehensive schedule of tasks. If you come in complaining of
> fluid in your ear, he might be paid a relatively small amount for a
> "medium level exam" for lack of a better term. If you have a little growth
> on your tummy that he cuts out in five minutes, he gets paid a *lot* more
> for that procedure.

This is indeed a big problem in the US healthcare.

>
>
>>> In Adobe click in the page number section at the bottom, type 137 and
>>> press Enter.
>>>
>>> www.kff.org/medicare/upload/Medicare-Chart-Book-3rd-Edition-Summer-2005-Report.pdf
>>
>> Sorry, that one won't work for me.
>
> I don't understand? You don't have a PDF reader?

Yes, I have a pdf reader, the link just didn't work
Try this instead:
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/11/14488/5819
Okay I did. The first thing I noticed was that she was advocating a 5%
premium for healthcare. No thank you! I already pay 33% income tax plus
14% self employment tax plus some other percentage Medicare tax. Enough is
enough.

>
>>> Let's face it, if the the USA could meet 100% of its oil needs from
>>> within, there's no way in hell we'd be in Iraq.
>>
>> Please avoid stating opinions as fact.
>
> LOL! Sure, it's conjecture, but it's very good conjecture.

And now you're grading your own conjecture? Even if I agreed with your
assessment it would be unfounded opinion with no factual basis. Or if you
have some fact to back it up, please trot it out.

>
>> Actually, they can but I don't see any relevance whatsoever.
>
> That's because you're more interested in protecting your initial opinion
> than trying to see things from another angle.

Wow, what a cop out!!

>
> The short point is that the people are sometimes best served by the
> government when it comes to things that *everyone* needs. When *everyone*
> needs something, a totally free market can have adverse consequences. As a
> people we already acknowledge this in the form of public utilities,
> roadways, sewage, garbage collection, gasoline, food production, defense
> and probably many others that escape me now. All have varying degrees of
> government control. Healthcare is a good candidate for this type of
> examination.
>
>>> Everyone needs healthcare. Everyone. You can't just decide not to have a
>>> heart attack. These types of universal needs can sometimes be best
>>> served by the people agreeing to come together to implement a system.
>>
>> That is obviously your opinion. It is NOT mine.
>
> Everyone needing healthcare is *not* an opinion.

No, but "These types of universal needs can sometimes be best served by the
people agreeing to cometogether to implement a system" clearly *IS* an
opinion.

Not being able to decide to
> have a heart attack or not is *not* an opinion. Universal needs being best
> met by people coming together is *not* an opinion unless you are seriously
> arguing that the police and military should operate under the free market.
>
>> I'm a native American. We invented socialism. That doesn't mean that it
>> is good for everything.
>
> Native Americans invented socialism? Sure.
>
> I never said it was good for everything, just *some* things.
>

Bye now
Gerry

[Jim Carr]

"ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
news:RcT_h.1510$TG.810@bignews2.bellsouth.net...

>>> First, yes the doctors are on salary.
>>
>> First, do you have a citation?
>
> Are you kidding? Do you think they work for free?

I don't know if they are on a set salary or have some other form of
compensation. Did you really think I thought they worked for free?

> I've never heard the term VHA,

Varmint Hunters of America. According to Google VHA shows 26,200 hits on the
va.gov website..I'm sorry you've never heard of the term. From their
website: "Eligibility for most veterans' health care benefits is based
solely on active military service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or
Coast Guard (or Merchant Marines during WW II), and discharged under other
than dishonorable conditions."

I don't know where you got the "poor people" thing from.

> I think the amount that goes to Medicare is spelled out on your W2.

Yep. But that doesn't mean that they don't dip into the general fund, right?
And Medicare is different than the VHA. Thus, I cannot say how much of my
tax money goes to healthcare right now. And that's just the feds. State
governments also spend tax dollars on healthcare.

> Try this instead:
>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/11/14488/5819
> Okay I did. The first thing I noticed was that she was advocating a 5%
> premium for healthcare. No thank you! I already pay 33% income tax plus
> 14% self employment tax plus some other percentage Medicare tax. Enough
> is enough.

You asked for a citation to prove my assertation about the adminstrative
overhead. I gave it to you. I'm not interested in arguing about the rest of
the article. At least now you know I wasn't making up those numbers.

>> LOL! Sure, it's conjecture, but it's very good conjecture.
>
> And now you're grading your own conjecture? Even if I agreed with your
> assessment it would be unfounded opinion with no factual basis. Or if you
> have some fact to back it up, please trot it out.

What do you mean "no factual basis"? Fact: We are not involved in any wars
or armed conflicts in 99% of the countries in this world. Fact: A number of
regimes in recent years have killed more people than Saddam. Fact: The joint
resolution giving permission to go to Iraq specifically stated that one goal
was stability in the Persian Gulf. Fact: Other parts of the world are
unstable politically, but we don't interfere there.

There are other facts I won't get into. Ultimately what I've done is
concluded that what makes Iraq get special treatment is its oil and
proximity to other oil producing nations. I base that opinion on a number of
facts, so please don't tell me that my opinion has no factual basis. I can
respect that you might disagree with my conclusions, but I'm not pulling
this out of the ether.

>>> Actually, they can but I don't see any relevance whatsoever.
>>
>> That's because you're more interested in protecting your initial opinion
>> than trying to see things from another angle.
>
> Wow, what a cop out!!

It's not a cop out. I tried for a second time below to explain the
relevance.

> No, but "These types of universal needs can sometimes be best served by
> the people agreeing to cometogether to implement a system" clearly *IS*
> an opinion.

It's not an opinion. First, I said sometimes. Second, and more importantly,
if it weren't true, there would be no government at all. The reason we
*have* a government is because we believe some of our interests are better
served by pooling our resources.

[ptooner]

First, I know I said I wouldn't address this again and I promise this is the
last time.

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:NxW_h.111985$s8.54251@newsfe21.lga...
> "ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
> news:RcT_h.1510$TG.810@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
>>>> First, yes the doctors are on salary.
>>>
>>> First, do you have a citation?
>>
>> Are you kidding? Do you think they work for free?
>
> I don't know if they are on a set salary or have some other form of
> compensation. Did you really think I thought they worked for free?

I couldn't imagine what you thought. They are civil service employees on
salary.

>
>> I've never heard the term VHA,
>
> Varmint Hunters of America. According to Google VHA shows 26,200 hits on
> the va.gov website..I'm sorry you've never heard of the term. From their
> website: "Eligibility for most veterans' health care benefits is based
> solely on active military service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines,
> or Coast Guard (or Merchant Marines during WW II), and discharged under
> other than dishonorable conditions."
>
> I don't know where you got the "poor people" thing from.

from the VA website: "VA maintains an annual enrollment system to manage the
provision of quality hospital and outpatient medical care and treatment to
all enrolled veterans. A priority system ensures that veterans with
service-connected disabilities and those below the low-income threshold are
able to be enrolled in VA's health care system." In short, it is for poor
people and people with service connected disabilities.

see http://www.va.gov/healtheligibility/Library/pubs/VAIncomeThresholds/

>
>> I think the amount that goes to Medicare is spelled out on your W2.
>
> Yep. But that doesn't mean that they don't dip into the general fund,
> right? And Medicare is different than the VHA. Thus, I cannot say how much
> of my tax money goes to healthcare right now. And that's just the feds.
> State governments also spend tax dollars on healthcare.

I'm sure that is correct.

>
>> Try this instead:
>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/11/14488/5819
>> Okay I did. The first thing I noticed was that she was advocating a 5%
>> premium for healthcare. No thank you! I already pay 33% income tax plus
>> 14% self employment tax plus some other percentage Medicare tax. Enough
>> is enough.
>
> You asked for a citation to prove my assertation about the adminstrative
> overhead. I gave it to you. I'm not interested in arguing about the rest
> of the article. At least now you know I wasn't making up those numbers.

I never suspected nor suggested that you created the numbers. I just don't
think they are realistic no matter who created them. I can't easily find an
explanation of what these figures mean. For instance, they imply that
insurance companies make 25% profit. I hardly think so. Accounting methods
can be made to say about anything you want them to.

>
>>> LOL! Sure, it's conjecture, but it's very good conjecture.
>>
>> And now you're grading your own conjecture? Even if I agreed with your
>> assessment it would be unfounded opinion with no factual basis. Or if
>> you have some fact to back it up, please trot it out.
>
> What do you mean "no factual basis"?

I mean, what you snipped was this: >> Let's face it, if the the USA could
meet 100% of its oil needs from
>> within, there's no way in hell we'd be in Iraq.
>
> Please avoid stating opinions as fact.

You made the unsupported bald statement as fact with no justification. What
we have here is a debate, and opinions don't count and wouldn't even if they
were relevant.

Fact: We are not involved in any wars
> or armed conflicts in 99% of the countries in this world. Fact: A number
> of regimes in recent years have killed more people than Saddam. Fact: The
> joint resolution giving permission to go to Iraq specifically stated that
> one goal was stability in the Persian Gulf. Fact: Other parts of the world
> are unstable politically, but we don't interfere there.

If I wanted to argue this point I would point out that other areas of the
world don't have an Israeli state with amazing influence in congress - but I
don't want to argue this point and I'm sorry I addressed it at all.

>
> There are other facts I won't get into. Ultimately what I've done is
> concluded that what makes Iraq get special treatment is its oil and
> proximity to other oil producing nations. I base that opinion on a number
> of facts, so please don't tell me that my opinion has no factual basis. I
> can respect that you might disagree with my conclusions, but I'm not
> pulling this out of the ether.

The problem is that you state an opinion as fact without any justification.
ALL my opinions are based on facts, but unless I present them with the facts
that back them up they are simply opinions.

>
>>>> Actually, they can but I don't see any relevance whatsoever.
>>>
>>> That's because you're more interested in protecting your initial opinion
>>> than trying to see things from another angle.
>>
>> Wow, what a cop out!!
>
> It's not a cop out. I tried for a second time below to explain the
> relevance.

You are intentionally missing the point. You don't think: "That's because
you're more interested in protecting your initial opinion
>>> than trying to see things from another angle." is a cop out???????

Anyway, I promise to shut up now.
Gerry

[Mike Rieves]

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:NxW_h.111985$s8.54251@newsfe21.lga...
> "ptooner" <someguy@onthe.net> wrote in message
> news:RcT_h.1510$TG.810@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
>>>> First, yes the doctors are on salary.
>>>
>>> First, do you have a citation?
>>
>> Are you kidding? Do you think they work for free?
>
> I don't know if they are on a set salary or have some other form of
> compensation. Did you really think I thought they worked for free?
>
>> I've never heard the term VHA,
>
> Varmint Hunters of America. According to Google VHA shows 26,200 hits on
> the va.gov website..I'm sorry you've never heard of the term. From their
> website: "Eligibility for most veterans' health care benefits is based
> solely on active military service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines,
> or Coast Guard (or Merchant Marines during WW II), and discharged under
> other than dishonorable conditions."


The VA used to be a very good thing, Twenty years ago, I got $30.000 worth
of quintuple coronary bypass surgery, along with the critical care,
medications, and services necessary to help me recuperate, at no cost,
because I'm a veteran. However, the VA hospital where I had my surgery is
now closed, and the hospital that now covers this area has a surgical
waiting list so long that a person needing life-saving surgery isn't likely
to survive long enough to get it. Even current war veterans who were wounded
in combat have difficulty getting treatment from the VA. Why? Because the
government has been cutting VA funding for years, because funding it wasn't
something they could get political milage from.

[Mike Rieves]

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:aJz_h.80764$NK5.72215@newsfe23.lga...
> "Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
> news:bjx_h.7563$TD3.398@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>> Wow, I never thought to see you espousing socialized madicine, or, are
>> you just funning me because I'm an ignorant southern boy?
>
> If we can pay farmers not to grow certain crops to keep the food industry
> from going haywire (resulting in high prices and food shortages), I don't
> see why we can't find a better approach to healthcare. We *all* need it at
> some point or another. Even the staunchest conservatives are not
> comfortable with denying healthcare to someone who *really* needs it. So,
> let's just stop dicking around and find a better way to handle it.
>
>> I think everyone should be entitled to basic healthcare, and I have a
>> good start on a solution, just end the war in Iraq and take the money
>> being spend on it and put it into healthcare, eliminate the drug industry
>> and insurance industry lobbies and make our representatives actually
>> represent we, the people.
>
> Eliminate the drug industry? We need them. I'm not saying the industry
> couldn't be tweaked, but it *is* a high-risk, high-reward industry. I
> don't see people complaining when drug companies lose hundreds of millions
> on a failed drug, so I don't begrudge them their higher profits.

No, No, No! Eliminate the drug industry LOBBY! Why is it that Americans are
the only ones paying the hugely inflated prices? Because the drug lobby has
too much political power in this country. And "tweak" isn;t the word I would
use, "overhaul" would be more appropriate.

> What does annoy me is people who complain about the price of Allegra
> without having tried over the counter drugs like Claritin first. Many of
> the newer drugs are no more effective than the old ones. Some have reduced
> side-effects, but how many people actually try the cheap one first to see
> how well they do?

I always go OTC whenever possible, and my doctor helps me by telling me
what OTC meds will do as well as, and sometimes better than prescription
drugs. Unfortunately, the pharmacutical companies actually give kickbacks
and other rewards to doctors who prescribe the newer high-profit drugs, so
doctors like mine are a minority.

> As for Iraq, what we need to do is reduce our dependence on oil so that we
> don't need OPEC. Many people when they look at alternatives to oil point
> out that it won't replace oil. So what? We don't need to replace it, just
> reduce our use. If 30 years ago Carter could have gotten this country to
> seriously look for ways to reduce oil consumption, we would not be in Iraq
> today.

If this Bush hadn't been appointed (not elected) as president the first
time, and if there hadn't been a surplus of idiots to elect him the second
time, we would not be in Iraq today. If Congress had had the balls to stand
up to him we would not be in Iraq today.
Do you realize that the US has enough oil reserves to resuce our
dependance on OPEC to the point that they would not have the power to hold
us up anymore? Do you remember a few years ago when scientists said that
once gasoline reached two dollars a gallon that it would become economical
to get to the oil locked up in US shale deposits (a reserve greater than all
of Iraq's oil reserves)? What happened with that? Never mind, I know what
happened, the oil companies sat on it, and it hasn't been mentioned in
several years.

> What have we spent so far? $300 billion? What if we gave three companies
> $15B each to come up with ways to reduce our oil dependence, then gave a
> $5B tax-free prize to the winner. We could then spend another $100B to
> subsidize the market to get the newfangled widgets into the hands of
> consumers. We'd still be spending half of what we spent in Iraq, when the
> only reason we're there is to protect oil interests (both for greedy
> people and the average Joe).
>
Try $500 billion. Why don't we do it? Because the oil industry has so much
power that they can squash any political move that might hurt their
business. It's cool to talk about reducing oil dependence, it just isn't
cool to actually do anything that might really reduce oil dependence.