Alaska Darin Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 don't think christie and rush got the memo Is there a point there or are you implying that I give a crap about either of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 conservatives like you, think there should be no laws because people generally go out of their way to look out for each other. What an absolutely childish thing to write. You write as a person who simply is surgically attached to a progressive way of thinking and communicating. I'd call your thinking “black and white,” but you would undoubtedly see me as a racist who has no business using the "b" word. right, more often than not, a majority of today's billionaires were born into poverty and through the magic of free enterprise rose up from nothing. head down to the local food bank and trot out that theory, and see where it gets you. but wait, you have money. good for you. What are you? Twelve? I'm not sure what wealthy person screwed you, but you have an amazingly childish and naive way of seeing things. Fortunately for our country, and in spite of people like yourself, most Americans still aspire to have more money instead of less, and resist the ridiculous attempts people like you and our president make to convince them that ALL people with money are bad and the singular reason for the world's problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I'm not sure what you're talking about but if you mean that 50 year old is retiring prior to qualifying for Medicare. If that 50 year old retiring cannot affort the $10000 in health care he should not be retiring. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 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). Standing in line for hours vs Meazza waiting for months? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 there have been several fundraisers for cops that i've known of -- those who have been hurt on the job -- that it's mind-boggling to believe they aren't covered for some of these debilitating injuries. jw Was enough money raised to pay for the medical bills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 That makes me feel like Taylor in the "Planet of the Apes". i'm intrigued. please expound...i'm not up on Planet of the Apes references. do yuo mean you feel like charleton heston? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 uhh, not always. hell, forget your regular joe and jane blow cops who have to hold fund-raisers to make ends meet, how about some actual 9-11 fist-responders who couldn't get the benefit of any doubt. oh, sorry, my bias is showing. jw well, rush was on pills at one point wasn't he. does that make him a provider of some sort? jw The first sentence is ridiculous and I say bull ****. That would make Rush a "consumer". You know what that is don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Standing in line for hours vs Meazza waiting for months? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 i'm intrigued. please expound...i'm not up on Planet of the Apes references. do yuo mean you feel like charleton heston? Taylor was shocked with the upside down world he came back to. I'm shocked with your statement I bolded. You've got it backwards. 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. Doc, you surprise me. How do you find out if it is benign or not without testing it with what I assume would be an biopsy? How could the system be right to refuse the cost of a doctors visit, and subsequent test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 What an absolutely childish thing to write. You write as a person who simply is surgically attached to a progressive way of thinking and communicating. I'd call your thinking “black and white,” but you would undoubtedly see me as a racist who has no business using the "b" word. What are you? Twelve? I'm not sure what wealthy person screwed you, but you have an amazingly childish and naive way of seeing things. Fortunately for our country, and in spite of people like yourself, most Americans still aspire to have more money instead of less, and resist the ridiculous attempts people like you and our president make to convince them that ALL people with money are bad and the singular reason for the world's problems. really, this is just in America. wow. how naive. no one else in the world wants to aspire to make more money instead of less. that's quite an innovative thing. maybe someone should write a book about it. if you'd stop for a second in your name-calling naivete, perhaps you'd actually give yourself time to think things through and take a little time to step off a ledge that's so instably elitist, that it could well topple over with the next gold coin you thumb in your precious pocket. at no point, have i said all people with money are bad. though greed is a dreadful thing, and it is the root cause for much of humanity's problems going back to, well, the first day someone traded something for something. yet you, are the one, who seems to think that all people without money deserve their fate in life, require no sympathy or compassion, and seem to suggest that the haves should limit themselves to living in gated communities and limit to the poor what can be stored away in compost bins. of course, i might be exaggerating your point here, but not by far. i've made a good life for myself, and i won't apologize for it. but it's beyond me to suggest anyone to thumb their nose at the less fortunate. that's, well, freaking mean. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Taylor was shocked with the upside down world he came back to. I'm shocked with your statement I bolded. You've got it backwards. Doc, you surprise me. How do you find out if it is benign or not without testing it with what I assume would be an biopsy? How could the system be right to refuse the cost of a doctors visit, and subsequent test? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) what did it turn out to be meazza. for $1000 it was almost certainly benign and nonthreatening. maybe the system was right to refuse the cost? untreated diabetes, heart disease, hypertension...not so much. This same system misdiagnosed my father who ended up having cancer caught too late. You're an apologist for something that is a failure because it represents your ideology. !@#$ing moron. Edited January 10, 2012 by meazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisconsin Bills Fan Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) really, this is just in America. wow. how naive. no one else in the world wants to aspire to make more money instead of less. that's quite an innovative thing. maybe someone should write a book about it. if you'd stop for a second in your name-calling naivete, perhaps you'd actually give yourself time to think things through and take a little time to step off a ledge that's so instably elitist, that it could well topple over with the next gold coin you thumb in your precious pocket. at no point, have i said all people with money are bad. though greed is a dreadful thing, and it is the root cause for much of humanity's problems going back to, well, the first day someone traded something for something. yet you, are the one, who seems to think that all people without money deserve their fate in life, require no sympathy or compassion, and seem to suggest that the haves should limit themselves to living in gated communities and limit to the poor what can be stored away in compost bins. of course, i might be exaggerating your point here, but not by far. i've made a good life for myself, and i won't apologize for it. but it's beyond me to suggest anyone to thumb their nose at the less fortunate. that's, well, freaking mean. jw Wow it is so mean to say that people should only have as many kids as THEY can pay for. How awful! Edited January 10, 2012 by Wisconsin Bills Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 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. I took Meazza's original post re the lump as it was going to take him months to get an appointment. An appointment? In his most recent post I guess cancer runs in his family. Under the same circumstances I would have done the same thing if I was a Canadian and would have paid out of pocket to get it checked. Someone with less resources wouldn't be able to do that. I guess universal healthcare disfavors the less affluent. I would think that getting an appointment with a doctor for what could be your preferred preventive medicine should be able to be arranged sooner than what Meazza was told. Speculate around that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 really, this is just in America. wow. how naive. no one else in the world wants to aspire to make more money instead of less. that's quite an innovative thing. maybe someone should write a book about it. if you'd stop for a second in your name-calling naivete, perhaps you'd actually give yourself time to think things through and take a little time to step off a ledge that's so instably elitist, that it could well topple over with the next gold coin you thumb in your precious pocket. at no point, have i said all people with money are bad. though greed is a dreadful thing, and it is the root cause for much of humanity's problems going back to, well, the first day someone traded something for something. yet you, are the one, who seems to think that all people without money deserve their fate in life, require no sympathy or compassion, and seem to suggest that the haves should limit themselves to living in gated communities and limit to the poor what can be stored away in compost bins. of course, i might be exaggerating your point here, but not by far. i've made a good life for myself, and i won't apologize for it. but it's beyond me to suggest anyone to thumb their nose at the less fortunate. that's, well, freaking mean. jw An utter crock of crap if I ever read one, while cleverly disguised in colorful words, including the ones that you put in his mouth. You bring up greed a hell of a lot in this discussion. There's also a lot of talk about other deadly sins in this thread, yet I've never heard liberals admit that the entire basis of their feel good movement is envy masquerading as caring for the little guy. Only you would jump to a conclusion that successful and wealthy people got to their stead in life only due to greed, and worse, doing it by trampling on the success of others. Nah, it has nothing to do with making the right choices in their lives, taking risks, making sacrifices and working their butts off to move up the ladder. Of course people in other lands want to improve their lot in life, but I defy you to find a place other than the US where a person can go from rags to riches as long as he's smart, driven and motivated to succeed. Funny part is in the straw poll of people I know (yes, a limited sample) - all of the successful people I know worked their way to get to their spot, and all the sad poor unfortunate people are there because of continued pattern of making stupid choices and never learning from their mistakes. If you're not too blind to take a real look around you, you will find that far more often than not, people deserve their fate because of choices they made on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) I took Meazza's original post re the lump as it was going to take him months to get an appointment. An appointment? In his most recent post I guess cancer runs in his family. Under the same circumstances I would have done the same thing if I was a Canadian and would have paid out of pocket to get it checked. Someone with less resources wouldn't be able to do that. I guess universal healthcare disfavors the less affluent. I would think that getting an appointment with a doctor for what could be your preferred preventive medicine should be able to be arranged sooner than what Meazza was told. Speculate around that. 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. Edited January 10, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 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. Doc, I'm just saying that more government is not the answer. What's wrong with tort reform and portability to see what that will do? I'll tell you what, the fukin trial lawyers own the dems, and if you won't admit that you've given up your Hippocratic Oath for just plain hypocrisy. You know that defensive medicine is killing the system? Get off your liberal bandbox and look at logical solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Doc, I'm just saying that more government is not the answer. What's wrong with tort reform and portability to see what that will do? I'll tell you what, the fukin trial lawyers own the dems, and if you won't admit that you've given up your Hippocratic Oath for just plain hypocrisy. You know that defensive medicine is killing the system? Get off your liberal bandbox and look at logical solutions. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 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. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwGLdYBm1bY Doc, I'm just saying that more government is not the answer. What's wrong with tort reform and portability to see what that will do? I'll tell you what, the fukin trial lawyers own the dems, and if you won't admit that you've given up your Hippocratic Oath for just plain hypocrisy. You know that defensive medicine is killing the system? Get off your liberal bandbox and look at logical solutions. This would barely touch the problem of getting heath care to those who need it. I think we all agree that people see doctors as a walking lawsuit. B An utter crock of crap if I ever read one, while cleverly disguised in colorful words, including the ones that you put in his mouth. You bring up greed a hell of a lot in this discussion. There's also a lot of talk about other deadly sins in this thread, yet I've never heard liberals admit that the entire basis of their feel good movement is envy masquerading as caring for the little guy. Only you would jump to a conclusion that successful and wealthy people got to their stead in life only due to greed, and worse, doing it by trampling on the success of others. Nah, it has nothing to do with making the right choices in their lives, taking risks, making sacrifices and working their butts off to move up the ladder. Of course people in other lands want to improve their lot in life, but I defy you to find a place other than the US where a person can go from rags to riches as long as he's smart, driven and motivated to succeed. Funny part is in the straw poll of people I know (yes, a limited sample) - all of the successful people I know worked their way to get to their spot, and all the sad poor unfortunate people are there because of continued pattern of making stupid choices and never learning from their mistakes. If you're not too blind to take a real look around you, you will find that far more often than not, people deserve their fate because of choices they made on their own. So what about the people who do make good choices but still end up in a shithole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) youtube.com/watch?v=PwGLdYBm1bY Sicko?? Why not just post something from Alex Jones. 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. The fact is to get 2 ultrasounds and 1 MRI for the damn thing cost over $1,000. Of course if I had gone the public route I'd have waited quite a bit. You're right, it did turn out to be nothing but do you really think I'm not going to sacrifice that cash to make sure? As I already said, I have many friends who are choosing the private route because public has become way too much of a hassle. Semi-private is growing dramatically here. Now tell me if it's normal in your honest opinion that tax payers are paying out of their pocket as well as tax dollars for health services when it's supposedly !@#$ing free? The link below says it all. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06/27/wait-times-longer-for-sickest-patients-poll/ Edited January 10, 2012 by meazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts