birdog1960

was any of your training publicly subsidized? we all know the true cost of medical education is much more than most public med schools charge. did you get any government low interest loans? did you go to a public med school? hell, even if you did your residency at georgetown, it was subsidized by medicare dollars...so shouldn't there be some payback to the public? and because people will still abuse their bodies (and people who don't will still get dreadful illnesses) should we not at least attempt to make a difference? some people do stop smoking and/or lose weight at least in part due to the encouragement of their doctors. some drug addicts and alcoholics quit. some arrogant, "invincibles" change their risky behaviors (well, rarely, i grant you). if we continue our vain search for immortality and permanent youth with the outrageous costs associated it will be the upper middle class and below getting government insurance as no one but the rich will be able to afford private insurance. rationing happens now and will continue but hopefully a more studied, rational approach can be agreed upon. about 1/3 of all medicare dollars are spent in the last month of life. how am i ignoring that? most are either ignoring it or avoiding it. it's the elephant in the room and will only get worse with improved but more expensive heroic interventions.

baby steps...single payer was not politically feasable this go round. yes, there will always be haves and have nots but it will be better when the disadvantaged (think the minimum wage worker with 2 jobs and no insurance) gets basic care and seeks it early when it can do the most good. should that person have coverage for the treatment of cosmetic skin lesions or elective repair of droopy eyelids? Nope but it should cover counseling for smoking cessation and proper diet recs.. should he be eligible for dialysis if needed after 65? 70? 80? should he be a candidate for a bypass at 80? at 60 if he smokes? don't know but i think these questions should be open to debate if we want to avoid the cost of health care becoming 25-30% of gdp. and the same rules decided on for the disadvantaged should hold for the advantaged but they never will. the golden rule is just too strong in the US and that will never change. a reasonable person grudgibgly accepts this. btw, doesn't it make more sense to make decisions like this or on more simple but important questions (eg duration of antibiotic treatment for strep throat) based on evidence rather than anecdote and tradition? how can you possibly argue otherwise?

and what then of the other side of the coin: the wealthy drug addict radio broadcaster who needs a cochlear or penile implant, the rockstar that needs a new liver but keeps drinking, the executive who had a bypass but keeps smoking? if they can afford "good" private insurance and maybe much more out of pocket, they get what they "need". many more examples out there...ask our resident gas passer how many 80+ year olds with 5 or less years life expectancy he's put to sleep for joint replacements. how old was barbara bush when she got her recent bypass? what's her life expectancy with and without it? how many bone marrow transplants are done on patients with negligible 1 or 5 year survival rates? if you really want to save money in the system, these are the questions that need asking and answering, even for thse with wealth as the difference between demand and supply widens while more costly and effective interventions prolong life.. people currently without "good" insurance are rarely (or at least much less frequently) offered these interventions which may be well and proper if lifestyle conditions are not met. yet, fat, poor diabetics often don't get regular care til they develop chest pain and coronary artery disease, in our current system. when a fat, poor 50 yo arrives at an er with chest pain, would you advocate refusing care? a poor alcoholic would already be refused a liver transplant until he abstained from alcohol for a protracted period. most would consider this reasonable as do i but it such judgements should be universally applied when they result in life or death for the patient. they aren't in our current system.

sorta like health insurance companies, huh?

what the medical profiteers and even their opponents understand all too well is that there is and always will be more demand than supply in health care. one solution is to supply those who can pay the most. an alternative solution is to supply those who truly need the most and are most likely to benefit from applied resources. the former is what we've lived for decades. the latter is what compassionate, fair minded persons dream of and fight for. i'd be satisfied if we end up somewhere in between...which appears to be the short term resolution of the current administration....baby steps.

assuming that the staff is conscientious and prideful in their work (and judging from some of the comments this may not always be a valid assumption), what are risky foods to order out in regards to health and taste? is the statement about specials being experiments with leftovers generally accurate? i always worry about shellfish but still order it. i know, for instance, that the shelf live of mussels is very short and they should probably be thrown out if not consumed pretty quickly. is it common to risk patrons health on stuff like this for the bottom line? some of the comments are making me a little queasy. i know a great cook who opened an excellent high end place that never seemed to skimp and served amazing food but went broke in a little over a year despite being busy (and they did mark up the wine X2-2.5 as stated in the article). does it take unsavory practices (not including the wine mark up- i get that) to make it in this biz? sure hope not.

then you said "yes" to ever having DTV? i dumped it about 5 years ago because of lack of local stations in hd at the time and refusal to allow national network feeds in lieu of locals. also have huge oak trees that made reception undependable. they're now 5 years bigger and it'll only be worse...guess i'll just have to try and see what happens or i could say "no" to all 3 and see if they check on prior service. it just sucks that they bend you over to sell you a $350 license (btw, anybody look at the fine print- they take no responsibility for picture or stream quality).

so, the answer has to be "no" to all 3 to qualify?

i've always felt sinatra was/is overated especially late in his career

just one example:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5qakFIecBU

the beatles?...seriously? even if you don't like em (and why wouldn't you?) you gotta respect em....everyone who plays an instrument knows how to play multiple beatles songs and they're mimiced, covered and copied over and over by bands (good and bad, of multiple genres) 40 years after their heyday. now, milli vanilli- there was an overated grammy winning band. yes is overated

i remember waiting in the parking lot for about 2 hours and then waiting in traffic another hour to get home. we started a touch football game in the parking lot to kill time while we waited...most people took it in stride and made the best of it. they had traffic flow almost figured out by the next home game.

i think it's very likely i was wrong also but...so many here have written about giving time to rookies before declaring them a bust (maybin, hardy etc) shouldn't the same standard be applied before we name someone a star? i must admit he's as impressive as the other 2 are not, however...

even though it's not officially a Sept. movie, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" was not widely shown in the US and thus not widely seen and would likely be "new" to most. even with subtitles and dubbing, it's an excellent movie....quite violent and sometimes disturbing but compelling. it's available on DVD now and well worth a watch.

agree completely! great job on the facelift

couldn't someone just state that they travel a lot since DSS is pushing a mobile app? that should justify it but i agree, i hate to have to beg for something i'm paying good money for.

this post remind me of this:

i'm thinkin: vi-IV-I-V and I-V-vi-IV...or in G that would be Em-C-G-D or G-D-Em-C. any musicians who can confirm?

excellent...lot of truth to it...what were those chords?

he's playing at down home in johnson city at the end of sept. nice place with good bands and a very good blues weekend once a year. i was one who turned up my nose at bluegrass for years but time and watching good talented bands over the years has changed that. it can get repetitive as the chord progressions are often very similar but the solos are often fantastic and there's no denying the ability in the players. you don't last in bluegrass if you aren't a very good musician. it's also part of the very fabric and culture of the south, especially appalachia...as much as farming and religion and they're all interconnected i think that's why so much of it is played with such emotion and soul. anyway, i get carried away....brrr has much more than bluegrass now- blues, country, folk, rock, jazz and americana are all there... and lots of hippies dancing wildly.

penny wise, pound foolish. wilson appears to have lost the plot even in money terms with this franchise. i'm sure stevie would do a much better job.

made a wrong turn once off the ambassador bridge from windsor...thought we were gonna die. must make the canadians wonder who really won the war of 1812 and what recent war was fought in detroit.

thanks magox. will be mortgage shopping soon. this helps.

Have you ever been to brrr? look forward to it every year. been slowly checking out the bands i'm not familiar with via the links on the brrr site. felice brothers won best country album from the bbc last year and are playing big venues all over the country and internationally. the track i heard on their site was kinda unconventional and not too exciting however. anybody know anything else about them? will likely check them out but that's the beauty of brrr... if you don't like em you just move down state street to another group. their missing some standard acts this year like ralph stanley and dan tyminski (was the voice behind george clooney in "o brother where art thou") but it looks like their going for younger acts this year.

is this not enough to justify mockery? 10 years of losing is not a fad.