birdog1960

yes, because ingrown toenails are a huge cause of mortality in the uk

forget the vehicle and pay attention to the source! she's dripping with guilt. and why not? she swore to do no harm. how did she end up doing this? it's a question i often ask of insurance docs over the phone. "is this what you sought when you applied to med school?" i have no problem with your paying for an mri and ?2 ultrasounds. $1000 is a bargain for that here. would the anti universal care crowd here agree that the government sponsored system should have paid for these tests for a unemployed medicaid patient with similar findings? your outcome seems a good compromise illustrating flexibility in the system to me.

all for those changes but how does that increase access for a family with 2 or even more minimum wage earners trying to pay for care of a serious illness? good start but insufficient.

truly doubt it was six months to see a primary care doc or midlevel to evaluate a lump. meazza obviously can tell us. but emotion (and bias) needs to be removed from broad policy decisions, however insensitive. despite spending almost $8000 per year per american (in 2010) misdiagnoses happen here too...and on average we live shorter lifespans than many countries that spend much less. yes, there are mitigating circumstances (not the least of which is the abysmal life expectancy of certain socioeconomic and racial groups) but shouldn't that measure be the overriding standard? it is certainly the most objective and concrete "endpoint". Universal healthcare disfavors the less affluent? maybe. for profit medicine disfavors the less affluent? absolutely and by orders of magnitude more.

i can infer that the patient is around 30. his description said arm. from that, i inferred it was likely forearm or less likely upper arm. if it was axilla(armpit), which would be much more worrisome, he likely would have said so. if his primary care doc said wait six months, it was likely rubbery and nonfixed. given all these likelihoods it was most likely a lipoma. could i be wrong? could the doc that told him to wait six months be wrong? yup. but statistically we'd be right way more often than wrong. and by saving on that biopsy we'd have more resources to address problems much more likely or even certain to be serious. but even in his socialist system he had the option to pay to answer his doubts. that's fine with me. just provide everyone else basic care.

what did it turn out to be meazza. for $1000 it was almost certainly benign and nonthreatening. maybe the system was right to refuse the cost? untreated diabetes, heart disease, hypertension...not so much.

i'm intrigued. please expound...i'm not up on Planet of the Apes references. do yuo mean you feel like charleton heston?

i'm talking about the direct cost comparison of individually purchased private insurance in the us versus the cost to be covered in tax payments in canada. affordability doesn't relate to this particular discussion.

do you expect either to decline medicare benefits when eligible or maybe they'll pledge to maintain ideal body weight after going on tax payer sponsored insurance?

been to em too. oddly enough, the few really wealthy that make it to the events don't seem to pony up enough to even start to cover the costs. but they feel alright because everybody that needs it can get complete care after waiting in line for hours, outside to see volunteer docs and dentists in tents (if you don't believe me, check out RAM clinic in appalachia).

don't think christie and rush got the memo

not ranking, just differentiating...and there is little difference in most cases. one exception is pbs (i'm not sure the newshour even mentioned michael jackson's death) but few watch it and far fewer yet are influenced by it. they are, rather, informed by it. and that's the point.

get an clue of what private insurance costs in the us. a 50 year old wanting to retire early and trying to buy a decent policy is looking at $10000/ year plus a fairly high deductible. are you paying $40k in taxes to national health? didn't think so.

so you see a big difference between "commentators and "serious" mainstream news. you mean the news that spends about 1/2 of the allotted time reporting entertainment news and sensational stories while almost completely ignoring most daily world events except those in europe and the us? even if we accept your premise that there is a difference, which form is the more influential for the target audience? propaganda is rarely successful if it's literal. do you think the german people really thought jews were rats? the propagandists are intentionally made to be cartoon characters, olberman included. there are just a lot more conservative ones than liberal ones.

the difference, as i see it, between the media on the right and left is conviction. as others have stated, people who choose journalism as a profession generally have an idealistic nature which lends itself to liberalism. their potential bias is often based on conviction. i think this is generally less true for those on the right, especially commentators on the far right. i don't believe limbaugh believes much of the stuff he says but then he hides under the veil of "entertainment". he and his ilk really are propagandists who cynically work for their masters and with great effect. i wouldn't be surprised if hannity really believes his message but savage? how do you go from far left liberal to fascist? bitterness? disillusionment? maybee but i think it's much more likely a case of personal economics. in short, i think left leaning journalist view their job as more of a vocation while right leaning more often see it as a good paycheck. i'm sure this is overgeneralized but i'm convinced there's truth to it.

taste, like humor, is entirely subjective.

finally looked at this. the penultimate myth for the waannabees....they're actually smarter than they and everyone else thinks they are. the elites are ineffectual, effeminate nerds without a clue.; only literally present in rush limbaugh's wet dreams (after viagra) but even he doesn't actually believe it. are you really this easily manipulated? the truth: the elites, both conservative and liberal, really are quite clever.

now, persuasive...

been around many academics (aka scholars) but have never heard any of them utter "harumph". maybe your experience is different? who mentioned fluency. you're apparently fluent in english but i've yet to read nuance and eloquence.

i don't really see what looking out for yourself first and thinking you live in the best place on earth have to do with each other. one might reasonably be viewed as a sign of a successful society while the other might be construed as a failing. and i'd like to think many countries would have done the same thing...of course anything either of us says to this is pure conjecture.

um, no. their analysis is insightful and mindful because they are experts in the field. they are experts in the field because of years of formal study, scolarship and observation. the school of hard knocks isn't enough. mehdi at the hummus kiosk in tehran is pretty unlikely to have much in the way of useful analysis.

to call these scholars mindless is...well, mindless. your bias is showing (but, it always does).

wouldn't you think it helpful to have some people on our side with these skills? i'm sure they exist but suspect they are very rare. perhaps one or both of these experts function in this capacity to some degree but the point is the generally inward looking, myopic, center of the universe attitude of many americans that seems so pervasive and that i find cavalier and potentially dangerous. sarah palin could well be the poster child of this sentiment.

this transcript and clip from 2 analysts about iran's sabre rattling is insightful and thought provoking. but the quote from the guy from the carnegie endowment is priceless! btw, how many american scholars do you think could speak in farsi with such eloquence and nuance?

down at least 15%...$1100 or so on coal. can't bring myself to add it up. still almost 2 months to go but i'm not hopeful. sherpa may be leading by a romney thin margin. white mountain titanium up 35 cents on 5000 shares he bought.