Re: Why healthcare in the U.S. is "expensive" (and why Andre's a lumberjack he's ok...)

Hello Jill,

Mucho edit here because there's some fun "meat" in the discussion and I
want to minimize fluff.

In article <1pjag3l05keqnnr0tkl0l822j3hhff4fj5@xxxxxxx>,
Jill <asker_w@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:54:50 -0400, PolishKnight <marek1@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
[...]
Unfortunately you didn't address the actual comparison I made between
the USPS and UPS/Fed Ex which was not about cost.

From earlier in the thread (it had gotten lost in the last post set)

"I worked for UPS. From what I saw they or Fed Ex could do a better
and cheaper job of handling the mail than USPS does."

It was quality of
services. You did nothing to demonstrate or counter my belief that
the USPS was far less effective in that category.

"Belief" being the operative word here.

Or the fact that
the only reason the USPS doesn't have to concern itself with Customer
Service is because it is a monopoly. I can't go somewhere else for my
mail delivery.

So's my cable. And landline (if I had one). Oh, and electricity and
gas.

In some cases, monopolies are efficient distributors of shared resources
and even if, IMO, Fedex and UPS were allowed to deliver private first
class mail, I don't think they'd beat them on cost and perhaps even
customer service if only because they have to break into the market.

Moving away from the evil USPS and onto geezer healthcare:

[...]
This obsession with the old living as long as possible at the expense of
the young seems rather like parasitical. It's one of the worst
expressions of FDR's class warfare.

Well, yes you have a point but you still didn't offer an alternative.

Well, there really is no alternative to dying Jill.

We'll see when you get there, Mark. <g> BTW, what age do you
consider to be old or elderly? 65? Social Security doesn't agree
with that one anymore. 70? 80?

If I make it to 70, I'll be a very happy old man and ready for whatever
happens after that.

I've changed my mind on a lot of things over the years, but there are
core values I'm pretty strong on and one of them is accepting my fate
provided that I see it's fair. Everyone has to die someday so I'm ok
with that.

My daughter in her twenties would say anyone over 40 was elderly and
over 50 was OLD. My neice who is 6 thinks anyone over 12 is old and
over 30 is ancient. So do we all take a vote on when it is time for
someone to roll over and die "and decrease the surplus population" or
what, Mark?

You're taking me on a pretty fun slippery slope ride there.

I never suggested euthanasia. It's not needed. Death is not the health
care system's fault. It's God's.

Seriously, this issue comes across as a socialist denial of reality:
Women should have equality EVEN IF they are still regarded as helpless
maidens. Everyone should be equal. There is no "alternative".

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about how people become unrealistic when they get together
in a group (or socialism) and start to believe in rediculous things
despite them being obviously false if they sat down by themselves and
thought about it.

How does this fit with your notion that
old people should "die and decrease the surplus population"

Considering some of the battles we've had over citations, it's
exceptionally ironic for you to put words in my mouth like that.

That line, as you know, is from "A Christmas Carol". I think. Maybe.
:-)

solely for
the convenience of younger people even as you do not identify which
age people are supposed to die at or exactly what age constitutes
younger people.

Many people live to be a 100 without needing serious healthcare
resources at all. I don't suggest killing them.

Ironically, our society now dedicates a lot of resources for education,
physical therapy, and healthcare for young disabled children produced by
unwed mothers. Probably similar in scope to what goes to the senior
citizen set. It's a class warfare situation that would make great
PPview smackdown. :-)

But in reality, there never was an alternative. There are some things
that can't be denied no matter how much people wish it were different.

Here's what I hear you saying. Once a person reaches X number of
years of age they should stop taking their high blood pressure meds,
their diabetes meds, should stop getting regular check ups or any
other health care and just DIE.

Jill, they'll DIE ANYWAY! Do you understand that?

You are over 40 years old. You have probably lived more than half of
your lifetime

I already said this and accept it.

(if you continue to be able to access good health care
in the future that is).

I've largely paid into the system, even now, and received little
healthcare in response. I only got insurance in the case (knock on
wood) something happens.

So why shouldn't you just stop seeing doctors
right now and if some health problem comes up you could just go to bed
and wait to die so that a youngster born this morning needn't have to
some day subsidize your health care?

I never said this in terms of black and white. See doctors, taking a
few meds, etc. is different than someone going to the doctor daily and
spending a million a year on operations, etc. to extend life by a short
time.

That's RATIONING and BUDGETING Jill. It's ugly but that's life. Should
we spend more on vacations rather than sending a child to an exclusive
school?

Rush Limbaugh said that to be a liberal is easy: Just give everyone what
they want and worry about the cost later. I'm not weaseling out of that.

I got something similar a few months back for some product I don't
even remember buying. Unlike you, I wasn't offered a $25 rebate but
was told if I signed on I might get upwards of $2 back. I filed it
under G for Garbage.

I'm writing a nasty letter to the judge and saying these lawyers should
enjoy their ill gotten gains while it lasts.

The judge can't do anything about the lawsuit. His job is to hear
lawsuits whether he personally agrees with them or not.

In theory, if enough people wrote back that they disagreed with the
settlement that would impact the class action status of the case and
certainly the legal fees the vultures (no insult meant, GA) can collect.

Theory being the operative word above.

It's a belief so I know it has to be true. :-)

The left acts largely as a bloc. Even most of the "blue dog" democrats
vote along party lines.

The right is splintered, however, and most of them were the ones who
filibustered the last immigration amnesty bill. Give them the credit
they deserve.

Nah. I think it is clear that GWB wants the borders (both North and
South) open for business purposes. I believe that is the same reason
he is soft on illegal immigrants.

I hate speaking badly about GWB after voting for him twice but the
truth is the truth. I still support him on the War but outside of
that he (like his father before him) turned on his base too often. No
Chidren Left Behind and the Senior Drug Bill fly in the face of the
fiscal conservativism platform he ran on. His deaf ear on border
issues is more of the same (he promised he would keep the country as
safe as possible). In GWB's favor he got two good conservative judges
on the Supreme Court and that is very valuable to conservatives but
really that is pretty much it.

Yes. You aren't giving the right credit where it's due: These 40
senators not only filibustered the bill, but they did so while GW and
the Dems together were throwing billions in pork (enough to get all of
our mail delivered) at them.

Actually if you reread what I wrote I think we are more or less saying
the same thing about GWB with regards to his immigration policy.

Agreed but you are lumping the republicans together which is what
Democrats like to do (in order to drag them down to their level.)

Jill, be fair: These men (and MAYBE a few women) deserve credit for
doing the right thing. Literally and figuratively.

I didn't say that they didn't.

You said "Nah" in response to me talking about the conservative core of
the republicans. Maybe I misunderstood your intent. Let's move on:

I think it is clear that GWB wants the borders (both North and
South) open for business purposes. I believe that is the same reason
he is soft on illegal immigrants.

GWB doesn't represent the right. He represents the power-brokers of
the party that are well situated and trying (and often able) to whip
the majority in line.

This is different than the Dems who really believe in political
corruption to the core of their dark souls.

[...]
That could take considerably long time to wind down though. In the
meantime young people will be subsidizing more and more old people
(the Baby Boomers).

"Soylent green... tasty and nutritious!" :-)

Mark, one day in the not so distant future you will be one of those
old people and in all likelihood you will want to continue living as
long as you can, too.

Speak for yourself.

LOL. Time will tell. Intellectually you know you will be old one day
but you're still young enough to passively believe you will always be
hale and "youthful" even as the years pile on. One serious illness
will probably turn that thinking around for you.

Theory being the operative word here...

I've shown on this forum that I'm willing to put myself on the line for
what I believe in.

You're free to make the accusation that I'll cut and run from facing
death, but I KNOW I can say from what I know of myself that's not true.

Note that most of the senior citizens are WOMEN and they are not well
known for being, well, risk embracers. They vote Democrat and socialist
for a reason and their men die off because they take risks. So for you
to accuse me of acting, well, like a woman is pretty rediculous. I
think the only guy here more knuckle dragging than me is GA.

I've thought about this and honestly tell you that the way I've lived
my life up to now is how I want to end it too. I don't
want to suck my loved ones dry of resources just to keep me around a
few more years. I hope that by then (and that day is now closer
rather than further away now that I'm in my 40's) I can move on.

Like I said why not start today before you scarf up any health care
benfits that might harm someone else's wallet?

Interesting you should say that. I'm going through healthcare benefits
and looking to cut them. I haven't visited a doctor in years and don't
need the best one so I've just been paying into the system for stuff I
don't use. The wife needs them for female things and for, well, you
know (too many people here obsessed with that about me already :-)

Now that I'm 40, I want to go every other year and just get some
bloodwork and prostate exams but this isn't what's breaking the
healthcare bank.

[...]
What about hillary's new brilliant idea to give each newborn baby
$5000 to do whatever with supposedly when they turn 18 but I bet
single mommies could get their greedy mitts on it earlier?

Hilarious. I'm sure the "anchor babies" of illegals will just love it!
:-)

Conservatives are having a somewhat similar discussion about their
candidates. Rudy Guiliani is seen by many as The Great Satan because
he is pro-abortion, pro gun control, pro women, and his personal life
is a train wreck for someone running for President. Others point out
that Rudy is pro War, pro national security, and is probably the only
Republican who can beat hillary.

My cat could beat Hillary.

I'm sure your cat is wonderful (but not nearly so much as any of my
cats) but to take that cavalier attitude with hillary is foolish.
hill and bill are dirty players. They cheat. And even if they didn't
the entire Dim party cheats. She could be president even as people
like you continue to scoff at the idea.

That's part of Hillary's problem: She has that reputation and it scares
moderates. This is what helped to lower trust of them that killed their
nationalistic policies 10 years ago.

Hillary has a 50% NEGATIVE approval rating.

Again she cheats and so does slick willy who wants back in the White
House so bad he can taste it. More importantly the Dims cheat. Voter
fraud won't go away in 2008 and will likely have been stepped up
significantly.

They could taste it in getting rid of GW twice and they lost.

Anything can happen, but Hillary has a lot of baggage.

The final election is over a YEAR away. The primaries haven't even
begun. There is a lot of time for opinions to change.

Agreed. I've seen dark horses ride up to the finish line in the past.

But usually that was because the leader blew it. George Allen said
"macaca" and THEN apologized (when has a dem GRACEFULLY accepted an
apology from a conservative? :-) and THEN ran an awful campaign. And he
lost by only a few thousand votes.

This is an election for republicans to LOSE. But they can, granted.

Finally, you can wipe your ass with polls. They aren't usually all
that accurate. For one thing they don't count or poll those
committing voter fraud. Also, many people *** around with pollsters.
I used to do that when they'd poll you coming out of the voting booth.
I'd lie as to who I voted for just to screw with their polls. Lots of
people do that especially with these pre-election telephone polls.

Negative opinions of Hillary are pretty deep including fear of national
healthcare for the reasons I mention, defense, the economy, and the fact
she's a woman.

Yes? Agreed?

In addition, she's trying to double dip on Iraq and that shoots to hell
her attempts to try to appeal to the anti-war sentiments.

I really don't see what she has going for her. At all.

There's little even her
supporters can say positively about her other than her being married
to a failed liberal who ran water for Greenspan.

Slick is exactly who her supporters want. She is as close as they can
get to Slick.

Slick won because the republicans put up Dole and George Bush Sr. These
were special cases: George Bush Sr broke a no new taxes pledge and
outraged his base AND Dole was a rockefeller republican and didn't deny
it.

I'm encouraged that even Rudy is pretty aware of the issues for
conservatives and discusses them unlike Dole or even GB Sr. Hell,
they're far more saavy than the current president and he won twice.

Hmmm, I just had a thought: I'm an optimist in case you haven't noticed
and not really frightened of risks while you're a pessimist. Maybe
that's why you don't understand my stoic approach to death.

Let's go back to GW: He's not very inspirational. He's a far worse
candidate than any of the Republican frontrunners except for, perhaps,
McCain. But he won (by stealing, of course :-) TWO Presidential
elections. That shows that the Dems ideas, in the full light of day,
aren't that appealing to voters. And those last two liberals didn't
have half the baggage Hillary did.

You under estimate the lunatic tin foil Dims. A friend of mine
recently invited me to join of all things an astrology email list. To
humor her I gave it a try. The FIRST post I read was from some woman
who ran a long screed on GWB...how he cheated and lied to get out of
the Vietnam Draft and how he had STOLEN the presidency from Dims in
2000. In 2000!

These lunatics are still foaming at the mouth over that SC ruling
SEVEN full years later as though it happened last night. I
immediately dropped off of the email list but I was grateful for
having read that one post. It clued me in to just how derranged the
Dim party remains today. They will support hillary to the end of time
if need be.

The problem with the tin-foilers is that they believe their own hype and
mistake enthusiasm for actual results.

They ultimately wind up turning off moderates.

I'll put some money on the side to make it interesting: 2 to 1, $20
bucks, says that a non-McCain republican candidate will walk into the
White House. Interested?

Not yet. It is still too early in the race. Maybe in another month
or two I will place that bet with you.

The reason being, I have no doubts about hillary's popularity among
the crazed morons in the Dim party (pretty much all of its members)
but I do believe there is a chance Rudy can still prevail. As for the
others...Thompson (oh puhleez), Romney (he can't overcome that Mormon
thing IMO), and the other lesser knowns...I don't think any of them
stand a chance against hillary.

Thompson is in the same place that Clinton was back in 1991. Did you
ever hear of slick willy before then?

Rudy would walk into the white house.

The rest of the conservative Republicans (the majority of the party)
allow that Rudy isn't an ideal candidate but the alternative...hillary
as president...is just to abhorrent to risk not voting for Rudy.

I believe when push comes to shove and the Dems are in the voting
booth even the few lucid ones will vote for their party's nominee even
if they believe she isn't the best possible candidate. She could
win. It is unthinkable but not impossible.

(Lotso of things aren't impossible... but I don't want to get that old
grudge rekindled... :-) :-) :-)

Whatever...

Anyways...

That's funny... the same thing was said about GW and Kerry.

I never once doubted GWB would beat Kerry. To me it always was a
no-brainer. hillary and slick are different animals from Jon Carey
though. Also...a theory was floating around in 2004 that hill and
bill didn't want Jon Carey to win in 2004 because then he'd be up for
re-election in 2008 and that was the year they had pinpointed for
hillary to run. It makes sense when you consider the arrogance of the
clintons.

Kerry had a good chance, honestly, until he showed his dark side in the
debates. Same thing with Gore.

Hillary's problem is that she's a genuinely unlikeable person and she
has awful beliefs. Those debates, amazingly, meant a lot.

What angers dems is that the republicans always beat the snot out of
them in the college. Their criminals and illegals sometimes get away
with vote fraud, but the moderates and conservatives still turnout.

On a local level, though, they clean up since they can promise goodies
for their different power groups. That's why the Republicans have
problems with the senate.

Interestingly... Republicans have something like 36 seats open in the
Senate and the Dems have 1/3 that so they can't afford to go with the
rockefeller republican route. They'll have to run an overall
conservative campaign so this will be a watershed election.

Ironically... Madame Antoinette has dragged the dems down to the lowest
level ever. 12% approval.

I remember people going nuts when Clinton was president too. Hell, I
remember when Madame Antoinette's reign was supposed to work wonders
and look how that turned out (she's probably knitting sweaters on her
747 as I type.)

Huh?

I call Pelosi Madame Antoinette because she insisted on a big private
747 just so she could fly non-stop. It angers leftist environmentalists
when I poke them about it.

A lot of moderate liberals don't want to vote for Hillary either. Why
you may ask?

They're HOMEOWNERS. They see illegals lined up in front of their
house for work. They don't want to see them going on welfare and
moving in next door as resident legals. They don't want the economy
to go into the toilet.

Too late for that. That horse is out of the barn. Wisconsin lending
institutions have been given mortgage loans to illegals for years.
Ditto for university tuition.

Ironically, with the housing market going down that means that it has
worked out to be an indirect income transfer from illegals and such
banks to middle class white voters... :-)

And most importantly, Hillary has no credibility on national defense.
She's trying the "I voted for it and then realized I wanted to vote
against it" flip-flop routine of Kerry. That killed Kerry and it will
probably kill her campaign too.

That's the nature of any Senator running for President.

I don't think so. I like Thompson's record.

Only one
Senator (a Dim) succeeded at that and that had more to do with
corruption on the part of his father than anything else. hill also
has corruption backing her up.

As for moderate Dims...

Moderate Dims are rarer than hen's teeth these days. Those with any
brains at all left the party with Zell Miller the last time around.

I know a lot of foolish dims who voted for Kerry but had initially voted
for GW and for Reagan. They're angry about the Iraq war (not
necessarily going in but GW's lack of support for the troops in terms of
getting them body armor or direction) and think he sold them out by
passing no child left behind and medicaid increases. And they're right.

Hell, I would love to see the Republican presidential candidate debate
with her and reply: "Your husband Bill said the same thing to you
years earlier. Are you saying he lied to you?" and watch the
audience reaction...

Not following you here...

I'm saying that Hillary has been played for a helpless woman victim fool
by her husband for years and now she's claiming she was fooled by GW
into the war.

Not very presidential... Good pork-barrel senator material maybe but
presidential material?

And yes, even most Democrats didn't like her. That's changed in terms
of asking them to choose between her and Osama Bin Obama but that's
hardly a useful test, yes?

So if the free bennies are good enough up in Canada the Mexicans will
head that way despite the lack of work and the cold weather. I say it
couldn't happen to a better country. They've talked socialism for
years...lets see them *really* put it into practice.

This indeed could happen as illegals move to North of the border and
then leave their anchor babies in the U.S...

Oh well...then Andre can tell us how much better Canada handles it
than the US did while he pays to feed and school the Canadian anchor
babies.

That will be funny. Watch those great infant mortality rates soar
too... :-)

regards,
PolishKnight
.