DAVID RUETHER'S PHOTO-VIDEO
POSTS
From 8/15/2009 Through 4/24/2010, Part 3
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[OT]: Visions of Extreme Closeups of China and Cloth, Etc...
[Sorry if this has appeared earlier - it has not appeared on my
news server, and I thought it may interest those interested in
unusual imaging processes...;-]
Recently I've had more interesting visions than previously. ;-)
Early ones consisted of a closing black-field aperture (1/2
second), followed by an instant return to normal vision. The
center was occupied by a still of what I had been last looking
at (and there have been variations on this). Lately, I've "seen"
parallel tilted blue neon tubes in the aperture center, and
"hyper-real" very close-in views of a white china surface with
the medium blue or red silk-screened patterning clearly evident,
and black, gold, and green or blue brocade cloth with all its
stitching and weaving very clear - these last ones within a larger
aperture. Before you begin to think the obvious..., read this --
http://migraine.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/patterns. ;-) A
friend sent it, and this plus looking up "scintillating scotomas"
among other visual effects I experience, likely from the same
cause, may finally account for several problems I've had in the
last 7 years (the cause can affect speech, muscle control,
perspective/size perception, and hearing - but mostly for short
periods). Some interesting things that have resulted are the
bodies of art, architecture, crafts (Persian rugs, mosaics, dish
and bowl patterns), and even literature (many images in "Alice
in Wonderland" are thought to be based on visual effects
experienced by Lewis Carroll, for example - and then there is
that famous disembodied Cheshire cat's smile, which may have
been a silver scintillating scotoma [they come in silver, gold,
black, and "clear-but-soft"]) that appear to be derived from
these images. It is difficult to connect all this with photography,
but it is a form of imagery (albeit hard to "fix" photographically
for others to see...;-) which is often made up of "noise" or
"grain", is mostly in color, and is often memorable...
--DR
[The version that finally posted...]
Recently I've had more interesting visions than
previously. ;-) Early ones consisted of a closing
black-field aperture (1/2 second), followed by an
instant return to normal vision. The center was
occupied by a still of what I had been last looking
at (and there have been variations on this). Lately,
I've "seen" parallel tilted blue neon tubes in the
aperture center, and "hyper-real" very close-in
views of a white china surface with the medium
blue or red silk-screened patterning clearly evident,
and black, gold, and green or blue brocade cloth
with all its stitching and weaving very clear - these
last ones within a larger aperture. Before you begin
to think the obvious..., read this. 8^)
http://migraine.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/patterns
A friend sent it, and this plus looking up
"scintillating scotomas" among other visual effects
I experience, likely from the same cause, may
finally account for several problems I've had in the
last 7 years (the cause can affect speech, muscle
control, perspective/size perception, and hearing
[but mostly for short periods]). Some interesting
things that have resulted are the bodies of art,
architecture, crafts (Persian rugs, mosaics, dish
and bowl patterns), and even literature (many
images in "Alice in Wonderland" are thought to be
based on visual effects experienced by Lewis Carroll,
for example - and then there is that famous
disembodied Cheshire cat's smile, which may have
been a silver scintillating scotoma [they come in silver,
gold, black, and "clear-but-soft"]) that appear to be
derived from these images. It is difficult to connect
all this with photography, but it is a form of imagery
(albeit hard to "fix" photographically for others to see ;-)
which is often made up of "noise" or "grain", is
mostly in color, and is often quite memorable...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bowser" <its@bowzah.ukme> wrote in message news:bLxpm.32$5N3.10@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h85u9b$km0$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> [ OT, but...;-) ]
>>
>> Recently I've had more interesting visions than previously. ;-)
>> Early ones consisted of a closing black-field aperture (1/2
>> second), followed by an instant return to normal vision. The
>> center was occupied by a still of what I had been last looking
>> at (and there have been variations on this). Lately, I've "seen"
>> parallel tilted blue neon tubes in the aperture center, and
>> "hyper-real" very close-in views of a white china surface with
>> the medium blue or red silk-screened patterning clearly evident,
>> and black, gold, and green or blue brocade cloth with all its
>> stitching and weaving very clear - these last ones within a larger
>> aperture. Before you begin to think the obvious..., read this --
>> http://migraine.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/patterns. ;-) A
>> friend sent it, and this plus looking up "scintillating scotomas"
>> among other visual effects I experience, likely from the same
>> cause, may finally account for several problems I've had in the
>> last 7 years (the cause can affect speech, muscle control,
>> perspective/size perception, and hearing - but mostly for short
>> periods). Some interesting things that have resulted are the
>> bodies of art, architecture, crafts (Persian rugs, mosaics, dish
>> and bowl patterns), and even literature (many images in "Alice
>> in Wonderland" are thought to be based on visual effects
>> experienced by Lewis Carroll, for example - and then there is
>> that famous disembodied Cheshire cat's smile, which may have
>> been a silver scintillating scotoma [they come in silver, gold,
>> black, and "clear-but-soft"]) that appear to be derived from
>> these images. It is difficult to connect all this with photography,
>> but it is a form of imagery (albeit hard to "fix" photographically
>> for others to see...;-) which is often made up of "noise" or
>> "grain", is mostly in color, and is often memorable...
>> --DR
> David, is this sort of thing typical among Nikon users?
>
> ;-)
Yes, of course! Only Nikon owners (and more of these than
not...) can see beyond the surfaces of what owners of lesser
cameras consider reality in order to perceive and enjoy
sights of greater intensity, variety, and glory than those available
to others... I would have thought that this truth would have
been utterly self-evident!
8^), 8^), 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Marvin" <physchem@verizon.net> wrote in message news:QfQpm.1639$Jd7.1477@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> [ OT, but...;-) ]
>>
>> Recently I've had more interesting visions than previously. ;-)
>> Early ones consisted of a closing black-field aperture (1/2
>> second), followed by an instant return to normal vision. The
>> center was occupied by a still of what I had been last looking
>> at (and there have been variations on this). Lately, I've "seen"
>> parallel tilted blue neon tubes in the aperture center, and
>> "hyper-real" very close-in views of a white china surface with
>> the medium blue or red silk-screened patterning clearly evident,
>> and black, gold, and green or blue brocade cloth with all its
>> stitching and weaving very clear - these last ones within a larger
>> aperture. Before you begin to think the obvious..., read this --
>> http://migraine.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/patterns. ;-) A
>> friend sent it, and this plus looking up "scintillating scotomas"
>> among other visual effects I experience, likely from the same
>> cause, may finally account for several problems I've had in the
>> last 7 years (the cause can affect speech, muscle control,
>> perspective/size perception, and hearing - but mostly for short
>> periods). <snip>
> Get to an eye doctor immediately, if you are really seeing
> things like this. You may have eye problems that will lead
> to blindness if they aren't treated.
Thanks - I appreciate your concern, but all but the "closing iris"
effect are well known visions resulting from temporary circulation
problems in the visual cortex of the brain (and other types of effects
can be centered elsewhere in the brain), and are "seen" whether or
not one's eyes are open or closed... Several years ago, I did rush to
an eye specialist when I saw 'lightning bolts" around the periphery
of my field of vision, fearing retinal separation - but it turned out to
be hardened ocular fluid separating from the retina, and it soon
stopped. Unfortunately, I was left with "permanent floaters" in the
center of my "camera-viewfinder" eye.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Billy Boy" <bb@nospam.org> wrote in message news:4r6da5l8a17tcsl2bhtvd94k0pvjqq6bg1@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 13:55:12 -0400, "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>"give it a rest already - it's not even that interesting" <giaraineti@giaraineti.com> wrote in message
>>news:904da5lci5gc1gnr9292mah8e9vj5d95lg@4ax.com...
[deleted]
>>And, I guess you are not very interested in indications of
>>how the brain interprets images, and that it can make its own,
>>notably with regular patterning (an unexpected observation).
>>Fortunately some very able neurologists and others are
>>interested in this subject area, as are many others who wish
>>to explore and better understand the underlying bases of
>>vision and other senses (let alone the effects and consequences,
>>of the causes of such unusual visions, etc.). There is much
>>here of GREAT interest, if looked at with an open and
>>inquiring mind...
> The following reply was already posted by someone to your first thread that
> you were filtering out, but you managed to destroy what might have been a
> mildly interesting discussion by posting your same post 8 times under
> various headers. Learn to drive before you take your car out onto the open
> road with other traffic and run into parked or other moving cars. This was
> a car-crash of your own making.
Ummm, then why did the "test" post succeed in appearing on
my server, and most others didn't? I did check my blocked phrase
and sender filters, and nothing was in either that would have blocked
my first post (and I tried changing the title, and formatting, and finally
the text body formatting before it finally did appear - mysteriously...).
And, I've been posting since 1995 without ever encountering this
(or any other) problem before. But, thanks for the below:
>>Considering that the vast majority of regular posters to this and other
>>photography newsgroups only have imaginary cameras, imaginary experience,
>>and pretend to own these imaginary cameras that they've only seen in
>>reviews online (then downloaded the manuals for them which they studied for
>>many days and nights, absorbing all that was written) ... I don't see how
>>your "vision" of photography is any different than theirs. It's just as
>>hallucinatory, just as beyond the control of their psychotic minds. The
>>only difference is that they don't realize how blindingly apparent they are
>>when they try to role-play to be photographers in this newsgroup.
>>Constantly screwing up on some of the most basic and minute of facts that
>>anyone who has ever held a real camera would know right off. Whereas your
>>post is up-front about delusional imagery.
I'm not sure how to take "delusional imagery"...;-) I'm always fully aware
that the images are from "within". They are also mostly very short in duration
(except for the scotomas, which last 10-20 minutes) and are generally
associated with migraines and migraine auras (with or without the associated
headache). Nothing "fancy" here...;-)
>>Aside all that, you can also add some cave-paintings to images made from
>>these internal neurological sources. Small deep caves were not easily
>>illuminated for the lengths of time that the artist must be there painting
>>his imagery and yet still allow the artist to breathe and see through the
>>smoke if there was a fire. It is now agreed upon by some scholars that many
>>of the fanciful animals and other spiritual images and designs in many
>>cave-paintings came from their oxygen-deprived "visions" alone. Painted in
>>dimly lit recesses of caves, mentally projected onto the surface by what
>>they were "seeing" in the dark.
Yes, this is a plausible explanation for many of the forms that appear,
but there can be others. And migraines, with or without headaches, appear
to originate in localized brain blood-circulation restrictions. As for me, I
have had severe heart arrhythmias (but not for years...) and I have severe
sleep apnea (which has been treated for many years). Thanks for
"transporting" the above post here - but it would be good to figure out
why I do not receive them...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message news:9tSdnU2LKoJ3-DrXnZ2dnUVZ8gFi4p2d@brightview.co.uk...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> [ OT, but...;-) ]
> Can you use a blog for these tales?
>
> It seems better suited.
>
> BugBear
Perhaps - but I never use blogs, have posted in photo groups for
the last 14 years, and thought some here might be interested in
reading about some brain and vision interactions/creations, rather
than just what lens/camera brands to favor and what f-stop and/or
shutter-speed might be recommended, etc. Much about photography
is about seeing, and finding out more about the process may interest
some... BTW, I do have various articles on my web page on several
aspects of seeing, listed in the photo index under "I babble" at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message news:478oa5p4r7f870j9oafvevuseq4dbvm6ql@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:03:22 -0400, "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com>
> wrote:
> : "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message news:9tSdnU2LKoJ3-DrXnZ2dnUVZ8gFi4p2d@brightview.co.uk...
> : > David Ruether wrote:
> : >> [ OT, but...;-) ]
> : >> [post deleted...]
> : > Can you use a blog for these tales?
> : >
> : > It seems better suited.
> : >
> : > BugBear
> : Perhaps - but I never use blogs, have posted in photo groups for
> : the last 14 years, and thought some here might be interested in
> : reading about some brain and vision interactions/creations, rather
> : than just what lens/camera brands to favor and what f-stop and/or
> : shutter-speed might be recommended, etc. Much about photography
> : is about seeing, and finding out more about the process may interest
> : some... BTW, I do have various articles on my web page on several
> : aspects of seeing, listed in the photo index under "I babble" ...
> You do indeed, sir. But hang in there: when Barack's health care plan takes
> effect, you'll get the help you need.
>
> Bob
Oh, so ver-ry clev-ver . . . . ! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message news:jf8oa5pj6qva31bg7ftmsskiiucpu68gus@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:57:36 GMT, Marvin <physchem@verizon.net> wrote:
> : David Ruether wrote:
> : > [ OT, but...;-) ]
> : >
> : > Recently I've had more interesting visions than previously. ;-)
> : > Early ones consisted of a closing black-field aperture (1/2
> : > second), followed by an instant return to normal vision. The
> : > center was occupied by a still of what I had been last looking
> : > at (and there have been variations on this). Lately, I've "seen"
> : > parallel tilted blue neon tubes in the aperture center, and
> : > "hyper-real" very close-in views of a white china surface with
> : > the medium blue or red silk-screened patterning clearly evident,
> : > and black, gold, and green or blue brocade cloth with all its
> : > stitching and weaving very clear - these last ones within a larger
> : > aperture. Before you begin to think the obvious..., read this --
> : > http://migraine.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/patterns. ;-) A
> : > friend sent it, and this plus looking up "scintillating scotomas"
> : > among other visual effects I experience, likely from the same
> : > cause, may finally account for several problems I've had in the
> : > last 7 years (the cause can affect speech, muscle control,
> : > perspective/size perception, and hearing - but mostly for short
> : > periods). <snip>
> : Get to an eye doctor immediately, if you are really seeing
> : things like this. You may have eye problems that will lead
> : to blindness if they aren't treated.
[To which my response was --
Thanks - I appreciate your concern, but all but the "closing iris"
effect are well known visions resulting from temporary circulation
problems in the visual cortex of the brain (and other types of effects
can be centered elsewhere in the brain), and are "seen" whether or
not one's eyes are open or closed... Several years ago, I did rush to
an eye specialist when I saw 'lightning bolts" around the periphery
of my field of vision, fearing retinal separation - but it turned out to
be hardened ocular fluid separating from the retina, and it soon
stopped. Unfortunately, I was left with "permanent floaters" in the
center of my "camera-viewfinder" eye.]
> OTOH, it may be merely a brain tumor or some other nuisance malady.
>
> Bob
8^) But, I have had both an MRI and a CAT scan of m' brain in
the last few years, with no tumors or strokes indicated. These visions
are so surprisingly common and well documented, beginning in the
12th century (and in art dating back to some types of cave paintings)
that any serious cause is fortunately very unlikely. They have been
studied by some very well known neurologists with an interest in
learning more about the sight-brain relationship, especially as revealed
by detailed patterned visions (or, think back to when you "saw"
sharp regular patterns in dreams, etc. - but you probably can't
remember any unless you also have these visions occasionally while
awake...). Even some neurologists have these (one rather famous
one is Oliver Sacks, who has researched and written on the subject).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"give it a rest already - it's not even that interesting" <giaraineti@giaraineti.com> wrote in message
news:904da5lci5gc1gnr9292mah8e9vj5d95lg@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:42:34 -0400, "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:h85tpb$j7h$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> Sorry, if this gets posted - but I have been trying to post here
>>> for a couple of days unsuccessfully even though I have been able
>>> to post to other NGs.
>>> --DR
>>[OK, so that one did post, but the below again didn't - so I will try
>>"attaching" it to this post...]
> We've been inundated with this post like 7 or 8 times now under various
> headers, having to re-filter them every time. When will you stop to realize
> that you are filtering your own posts? You could have gone to Google Groups
> to find out if the first one was posted and if there's something wrong ON
> YOUR END.
>
> I suspect your migraines have done irreparable damage.
Sorry about the repeats - I never saw any but the last, and
I *DID* check my filtering of both sources and phrases to
make sure that these were not accidentally causing the problem,
but they weren't. I'm still mystified by the cause (and it was only
by sending a .doc copy that I finally saw my post here). Any
ideas?
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"give it a rest already - it's not even that interesting" <giaraineti@giaraineti.com> wrote in message news:904da5lci5gc1gnr9292mah8e9vj5d95lg@4ax.com...
And, I guess you are not very interested in indications of
how the brain interprets images, and that it can make its own,
notably with regular patterning (an unexpected observation).
Fortunately some very able neurologists and others are
interested in this subject area, as are many others who wish
to explore and better understand the underlying bases of
vision and other senses (let alone the effects and consequences,
of the causes of such unusual visions, etc.). There is much
here of GREAT interest, if looked at with an open and
inquiring mind...
Again, my apologies for the repeated posts - I do not understand
why they were not seen on my server, and why only a copy
of the post from a ".doc" formatted original finally did appear.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"liu" <spamfreeliu@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:99c4022b-277b-4b3b-b388-93acde5ed60d@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> We need to buy a camcorder under $500 to record some demos. I was able
> to purchase a Panasonic 3ccd camcorder for $650 3 years ago, so I
> thought I should be able to get one at similar quality below $500 now.
> I'm going to research on this issue but I would appreciate if you can
> make a recommendation on a camcorder and an ok tripod for basic
> corporate training video. The video will only be deployed and viewed
> on web (WMV or Flash Video). The shooting settings are mostly call
> center, conference room, or training room indoor settings (so maybe
> lighting is not optimal but not dark).
>
> I think a camcorder at $400 to $500 range, and tripod for $50 to $100.
> Will I be able to achieve what I need with that amount?
>
> Thanks for your help,
You may not have received many responses since the prices are somewhat
low for good quality new, and you may do better buying used (preferably
local, so you can ask to try before paying for it). B&H sells the Canon
HG20 camcorder for $600 (plus accessories) - but it is HD (with that "can
of worms" - and you don't need that for what you want...). Places like Best
Buy and Sears used to have cheap 1-CCD Mini-DV camcorders that may
be worth looking at, and I tended to like the Sony models among these....
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
["Smarty's" previous post --]
Gary,
Using the fastest 24 mbit/sec bitrate, roughly 20 minutes on a single layer
and 40 minutes on a double layer disk. Slower bitrates such as the very
common 16 mbit/sec AVCHD from most camcorders (roughly equal to 25 mbit/sec
HDV in appearance) gets about 1/3rd more record/play time.
[The 17 Mbps *camera* data rate AVCHD is noticeably inferior in
appearance to 25 Mbps HDV camera data rate, which is roughly equal
to 24 Mbps AVCHD camera footage.]
In authoring you have a list with each selected clip added or removed, and
the ordering done by using Up and Down arrows to arrange the sort in any
order you wish. The menu which first appears (in 1920 by 1080p) has this
order.
There is no "first play" supported yet, but the author is frequently
updating the product based on user requests. It is one of those really nice
freeware products where the author can be reached directly. Try doing that
with Final Cut... [End quote]
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4aa5c1b1$0$5900$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> ...how long a program can we put on a red laser disc?
See "Smarty's" post for this information - although dropping the
data rate during the making of conversions to 14 Mbps can still
provide high quality disks if a good conversion codec is used
(Sony's, and not Ulead's...) if you are converting the best HDV
to AVCHD, and this can provide longer playing time. The
conversions can take considerable time to make, though.
> In the authoring process, how do you order the
> files onto the disc - can you select what goes first, second, third, etc, or
> will it just number them in sequence? Can I put together a little title
> sequence and make that the first file on the disc? I would guess anything
> goes, as long as it is AVCHD format - right?
>
> Gary Eickmeier
I have been authoring red-laser HD disks using AVCHD conversions
for some time (and have mentioned this often...) using a now-older
version of the Ulead VideoStudio editing program. This permits the
making of a menu panel with buttons of various designs (and with a
background image of your choice) for the individual videos on the disk.
You can place (and play) these HD videos in any order you want - and
these disks can be made with cheap standard DVD blanks using cheap
standard DVD writers. The only "hitch" is that a Blu-ray player is required,
and not all may be compatible with these disks (and, as I said earlier, I use
Sony Vegas to make the original conversion files - which are far better
than those made from within VideoStudio while authoring a disk).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:9wjpm.1656$tl3.1476@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> I wanted to add a few comments and observations here with regard to
> intermediates for doing AVCHD editing. Some NLE software uses intermediate
> codecs, but many of them do not, choosing instead to edit AVCHD in a native
> format and using preview files at lower resolution to see immediately the
> result of filters, transitions, etc.
>
> Some NLE companies have chosen to first convert AVCHD to another format
> which they already supported, rather than re-work their software to handle
> the GOP structure and profiles of AVCHD. Some NLE companies have optionally
> permitted intermediate codecs to be added such as Cineform, but do not
> demand it.
>
> With the exception of Apple which always convert to their own formats
> regardless of whether you are using AVCHD or HDV, the software for the PC
> with very few exceptions does not include or use intermediate files / codecs
> as such. Most of the AVCHD editing / authoring programs (Corel Video Studio
> Pro X2, Ulead/Corel Movie Factory, Cyberlink Power Director, Nero Vision,
> ArcSoft Total Media Extreme) make smaller proxy / preview files, usually
> about 1/3rd the size of the original AVCHD file. These are of relatively low
> resolution, and, as David says, do not typically show the very fine detail
> of the original during the editing process. They make no large files
> whatsoever.
>
> Programs which permit true HD preview typically do have either a larger
> intermediate, a (time consuming)rendering preview, or an outright conversion
> to some other truly larger file. In the case of Sony Vegas, this is an
> optional process, both in the sense that the render can be avoided entirely
> for those willing to take a lesser quality preview, or at higher size and
> resolution for those willing to add Cineform or wait for render previews to
> be performed. In the case of Edius this is not an option, but does require
> each AVCHD file to be converted into the proprietary format Canopus uses at
> ingest time.
>
> For those people with more time than money, a conversion from AVCHD into
> another format does indeed help the editing smoothness, but with penalties
> in processing time and possibly quality. Those with truly inadequate
> hardware can use 3rd party converter utilities such as VASST Upshift or
> Voltaic to make the AVCHD file into another format, but this is a lame
> solution in my opinion.
>
> As was true at the onset of MJPEG when the Iomega Buzz cards came out, and
> was true of HDV when the FX-1 was first introduced using Premiere to edit,
> the computer hardware and software lags the compression technology. Just as
> Martin succinctly stated, the editing suites need some time to catch up.
>
> The really important realization here though is that extremely adequate and
> low cost hardware and software is now available and has been available for
> quite some time to handle AVCHD. Choosing the right codecs such as CoreAVC,
> enough memory, the right version of Windows, the right graphics card, and
> the right software is a bit more tricky, but the results are achievable
> without spending a lot of money.
>
> I don't want to over-hype this technology, and have no personal gain here
> except a true belief that the format has a lot to recommend it. I, for one,
> was extremely dismayed to see HD DVD go away, and found HD DVD authoring
> with HDV / mpeg2 to be a very stable and beautiful format, particularly for
> people like myself who wanted only red laser disks. I now feel the very same
> way about red laser AVCHD disks with h.264/AVC content, since they are
> usually as easy to create, more detailed and crisp in appearance, and have
> the same essential feature I personally strive for, which is that the
> camcorder output can be placed on the delivery disk with bit-for-bit
> retention of detail / no re-compression, except with filtering / transitions
> / or titles are applied. I realize that a lot of editing creates filters,
> transitions, and titles, but I always prefer the editing tools which ONLY do
> the recompression for these special cases, and not in general.
>
> Just my 2 cents.....
Ummm, FAR more than "2 cents" - and this is "Smarty" at your very best!
This post is excellent, VERY informative, and fully positive in every respect.
Thanks!
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Martin Heffels" <goofies@flikken.net> wrote in message news:4qnaa593kr7frj1ahksqes220u0ucnid4q@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 12:57:19 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>I agree - but we still come around to the basic question of whether
>>or not it is more reasonable to choose an HD format type that works
>>well on modest gear (like a cheap dual-core machine, and even better
>>on a still-inexpensive quad-core machine) without the complications
>>and disadvantages of needing to use poor quality proxy files or good
>>but larger intermediate files. HDV is that well-proven and easy to use
>>HD format - and it additionally offers the advantage of easy archiving
>>of the source material. I know there is strong appeal to the convenience
>>of shooting to a memory card or hard drive and making quick transfers
>>to the editing computer (I feel this "tug" toward AVCHD myself...;-),
>>but it is not yet easy to edit 24 Mbps AVCHD on modest (and
>>affordable for most) hardware and software if one wants to do more
>>than just assemble clips, and really make videos. This is simply still
>>true, no matter how much someone else here rails against this truth,
>>or any of us wants it to be otherwise. Maybe in a year or two, things
>>will be different...;-)
> HDV is proven, and works indeed with modest computers. However it's
> not a wise investment when looking into the future, as camera's with
> 24Mbps AVCHD have a better picture quality than HDV, so why buy an
> "antiquated" format?
Does it? Is it? In theory, maybe yes, but I have seen little evidence that any
current 24 Mbps *camera-shot* AVCHD footage actually does look better
than the best HDV - and companies like Sony and Canon do still continue
to make and introduce "prosumer" cameras that use HDV, and these are
very widely used for everything from weddings to news coverage. We are
in a period, though, when both formats have their evident advantages and
disadvantages. At the low end, HDV is a good choice for reasons covered
at length here (mainly relative ease in editing and archiving for casual use
on a tight budget), but clearly elsewhere the choice is not so well defined,
except that with time and gear/software improvements, AVCHD is likely
to eventually "win". I have tried to gauge the level, budget, and experience
of posters when answering questions about this and when recommending
solutions (and most posters are obviously near the low end - so I'm not
going to recommend an F35 jet for going to the grocery store, let alone a
Lamborghini super-car solution for doing the same for these people - even
if these solutions may represent the future of transportation for all...8^) [I'm
being silly here to make an exaggerated point about all this, of course...;-]
Buying into future technology (but not current, with easy practicality for all
its parts) is generally unwise for many reasons, especially for beginners...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"j." <ggobbo@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e336559a-a86e-49b5-8a68-c455b9ca5024@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> In your case, I understand that you have a P4 system, so if you don't
>> want to splash out for a new system, proxy editing would be the thing
>> for you to edit AVCHD.
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> -martin-
> Thanks Martin,
> I'm going like that.
> I'll store the original as backup and for the future, and I'll do my
> editing on lower quality/Mpeg files. Just to create dvds to play on my
> set.
You can edit AVCHD using proxy files with Corel VideoStudio Pro X2,
and you can also use this inexpensive program (about $100) to author
(with menus and buttons) to make HD video disks on standard DVD blanks
with standard DVD writers (but you may need to limit the camera shooting
data rate to 17 Mbps - "Smarty" can tell you more about this). These disks
require a Blu-ray player - and all may not play the disks. The negatives for
me with using this program are its awkward (for me) interface (but you can
easily get used to it, if it is the only NLE you use), and the poor quality of
the proxy files used to make the previewing smooth (these make accurate
judgment of the sharpness of clips and exactly how things added will look
impossible, but at least it is a solution that may be usable without buying a
new computer or rebuilding your current one). Do save copies of the
edited videos to multiple hard drives (preferably internal ones) since standard
DVDs are generally not considered an archival medium. Also, if you do not
have a Blu-ray player, some HDTVs will play from memory cards or have a
USB port - or you can make good SD DVDs from the edited videos.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Helen Oster" <osterhelen@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9c3474bb-7307-4661-ad18-a42abfb83902@r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 8, 11:59 pm, Bob G <mrbobja...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't know.
>
> Adorama entered into a verbal agreement with the seller, were there
> any conditions other than that the equipment be in good shape? All of
> a sudden they renege because "prices have gone down". Not kosher.
>
> Now they make good, not because the seller complained, but because he
> made the matter public.
>
> I don't know.
Actually, we made good because an individual member of the customer
service team had a lapse in judgement, and made a decision which was
counter to Adorama's procedures. Had Tom contacted me directly there
would have been exactly the same outcome.
We hope the fact that we do care enough about our customers to post in
this forum reinforces your belief that Adorama is a good company that
deserves your business.
Life is all about learning and none of us are perfect; what matters is
what we do next. We hope that our apology is accepted in the spirit in
which it is made.
Sincerely
Helen Oster
Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador
helen.oster@adoramacamera.com
www.adorama.com
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Things like these happen. I have always considered KEH very honest,
but on the basis of a 'phone offer, I sent in a Pentax 6x7 and three
lenses. I DO KNOW HOW TO ACCURATELY EVALUATE
GEAR CONDITION (and where and how to look for the most minor
flaws)!!! The three lenses were truly in unused/mint condition (as in
NO marks of any kind anywhere, perfect mechanics, and totally clear
glass - which I check carefully by having the sun go through it [from
each ends, while moving the lens around and viewing the glass off-axis
of the sun path]). The body had a few slight "ticks" along the rear bottom
edge ONLY (as I described on the 'phone). Much to my surprise, the
"real" offer upon receipt of the gear was far lower than first offered. The
claim was that the lenses were "fogged"... I realized later that as a favor
to KEH, I had left on all the Tiffen filters, and these are notorious for
"self-fogging" - and I hadn't cleaned them and they hadn't bothered
to check the lenses without them. When informed of this, they upped the
offer some (with the intervention of a friend), but it was still so unattractive
that I took the gear back and sold it locally for a good price. Otherwise,
I had been quite satisfied with my dealings with KEH (but only with
purchases from them...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Jim Keegan" <jkeegan@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:3W6qm.37320$5n1.34083@attbi_s21...
> "Keith Nuttle" <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:h8ar7t$ron$1@aioe.org...
>> Do you know what obama and a rug have in common?
>>
>> They lie all of the time.
> AFUCKINGMEN!!!!!!!
It is sad to see the extremely low level of discourse that an
important issue like health care reform has brought to the
fore - and the incredible "know nothing" ignorance that is
now exhibited by so many. THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Without that,
we are doomed to lose our democracy as we descend into a
chaos resulting from a lack of respect for leaders (finally!) of
the highest caliber, and the institutions without which we can
have very little stability. See beyond the rantings and lies of the
talk show hosts and politicians who care not a whit about the
consequences of their actions, but only about short-term
aggrandizement and demagoguery - and do this before it is too
late. Please remember that it is easier to pull down a house
than to build it...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Doug Jewell" <ask@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in message news:4aa8e529$0$27610$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Larry Thong wrote:
>> It seems the meaning and value of the word "apology" has been watered down
>> to now mean "I'm sorry I got caught for doing whatever I did but was very
>> happy doing it up and till the point I got caught." It's sad that this
>> practice is commonplace with business's, politicians, investment brokers,
>> religious figures, criminals alike.
>>
>> Good ole boy Joe Wilson, a Republican, called out "you lie" during Obama's
>> speech and shortly apologizes after getting called out over it. It's sad
>> to see these juvenile actions taken by Wilson and the Republicans when
>> everyone knows Obama is very passionate and takes seriously the problem of
>> health care reform. He is the only President in history that is actually
>> doing something about removing the waste and corruption in the health care
>> system. Give Obama a round of applause!!!
CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP!
CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP!
CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP!
CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP!
CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP!
CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP!
CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP!
CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP! CLAP..............................................! And it
is WELL deserved! We FINALLY have a president that is very intelligent, cares
for more than power, and actually tries to get things right to benefit PEOPLE!
What a revolutionary idea!
> Don't you think it is kind of hypocritical that on the one
> hand Obama supports socialised health care so that the poor
> have access to life-saving medical procedures, and yet on
> the other hand he supports partial-birth abortions?
Um, talk about hypocritical... That word defines many on the right from anti-sex
right wing religious leaders and polititions who are caught in gay or straight extra
marital relationships while "preaching" the opposite - to outright lying about
proposed legislation. UGH! As for the specifics above, no one is "pro death",
but let's say your mother had to decide between her death and not having a
partial-birth abortion? I doubt that President Obama supports this for any but
emergency use to save the life of the mother - and we all dislike abortion used
as birth control. Work for better access to sex education, sex information, and
contraceptives if you really care about this issue...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bob G" <mrbobjames@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:94a4b97f-52ef-4dbe-935b-5f0597e68566@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> What he said was a lie, the health care will be provided to all tax
>> payers and illegals are covered under the tax law so will receive free
>> health care. Unless it was added all of the bills that have passed did
>> not exclude illegals.
> I don't know. Have we so lost our humanity that we think illegals are
> animals? It's pathetic to hear a President promise to deny health care
> to some people in order to appease Republicans.
Yes - and that health care would not be "free" in any case, as it now is
for many who currently (and expensively for the rest of us) use emergency
room facilities in lieu of having a regular (and far less expensive) GP.
As a tax-payer and health-care payer, I would much prefer to cover a
$100 GP visit than a $1000 ER visit for an "illegal" concealed inside my
bills. And I would also prefer that a communicable disease or potentially
very serious and expensive condition be caught early through good care.
It is short-sighted to see this in "us vs. them" terms when universal
health care, including preventive care, helps us all. Or, for those against
single payer health care (which is what SS Medicare is - and most are
VERY happy with that, and its administrative costs are a small fraction
of those of private insurance), look at the statistics. In EVERY country
that has a single-payer system of health care, the average life span is
greater than ours(!), and the cost of the health care system is less than
ours(!). Yet the "know-nothings" hide their heads in the sand and mutter
idiotic things like, "socialism"...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message news:P-qdnSpS1-lx8DTXnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h8b2q8$5ms$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Bob G" <mrbobjames@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:94a4b97f-52ef-4dbe-935b-5f0597e68566@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>>> What he said was a lie, the health care will be provided to all tax
>>>> payers and illegals are covered under the tax law so will receive free
>>>> health care. Unless it was added all of the bills that have passed did
>>>> not exclude illegals.
>>> I don't know. Have we so lost our humanity that we think illegals are
>>> animals? It's pathetic to hear a President promise to deny health care
>>> to some people in order to appease Republicans.
>> Yes - and that health care would not be "free" in any case, as it now is
>> for many who currently (and expensively for the rest of us) use emergency
>> room facilities in lieu of having a regular (and far less expensive) GP.
>> As a tax-payer and health-care payer, I would much prefer to cover a
>> $100 GP visit than a $1000 ER visit for an "illegal" concealed inside my
>> bills. And I would also prefer that a communicable disease or potentially
>> very serious and expensive condition be caught early through good care.
>> It is short-sighted to see this in "us vs. them" terms when universal
>> health care, including preventive care, helps us all. Or, for those against
>> single payer health care (which is what SS Medicare is - and most are
>> VERY happy with that, and its administrative costs are a small fraction
>> of those of private insurance), look at the statistics. In EVERY country
>> that has a single-payer system of health care, the average life span is
>> greater than ours(!), and the cost of the health care system is less than
>> ours(!). Yet the "know-nothings" hide their heads in the sand and mutter
>> idiotic things like, "socialism"...
>> --DR
> So you think that the only way to improve our health care system is to
> socialize it? You are ready and willing to completely give up on any and all
> ideas to have a decent privatized health care system here in the US? Why not
> give real capitalism a chance? If you were an MD, would you really want to
> work for the government? How about a law that makes everybody have a health
> insurance policy, together with opening up the insurance companies to cross
> state lines and sell their policies to anyone who applies for one? A real
> free enterprise system, IOW.
It is a pleasure to read an opposing post that is reasonable, and especially
civil. I applaud your comments and manner, although I may not agree with
your point of view. I take my health coverage from a "socialized" source, the
single-payer government system with my Medicare plan, and this has proven
far more efficient in terms of overhead, distribution of services, and quality of
treatment compared with conditions that existed before Medicare and the current
market conditions for those unlucky enough not to yet have Medicare available.
While a few "tweaks" may help with our current system, it is still so clearly
evident that our highly-touted medical system (which is not available to all),
costs both far more per person and it also results in a very noticeably shorter
average life span than is the case in EVERY other industrialized nation that has
that "boogeyman" of systems, "socialized medicine". Never mind that it really
does work very well, and it really doesn't remove any personal control or
choices over anything. It is time to look honestly at all the options (including
ones you suggest) and see what really does or doesn't work the best for
covering the most people and supplying the best care at the most reasonable
cost. The nonsense from the Right has obviously been intended to serve to
prevent this honest discussion - and the stony "lumpishness" demonstrated by
most of the Republicans during Obama's speech illustrates the likely outcome
of all this. It will be the Democrats alone who pass (or not) any important
advances in the area of improving our medical coverage in this country with
worthwhile legislation.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <not@home.today> wrote in message news:ofGdnRqrt6yGJTfXnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@giganews.com...
> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2009091102103375249-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
>> On 2009-09-10 23:15:47 -0700, Twibil <nowayjose6@gmail.com> said:
>>> On Sep 10, 5:56 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> I do not believe it would be possible for a true conservative to be
>>>> elected president today.
>>> Only because Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley are both dead.
They didn't do very well politically when they were alive - but at
least one had the feeling that Buckley was at least very intelligent
and that neither sacrificed their integrity on the alter of power.
>>> Most of the remaining leading "conservatives" are honorless twits such
>>> as Sarah Palin who are addicted to pandering to the lowest common
>>> denominator, and who wouldn't know the Constitution from a roll of
>>> toilet paper without a quick refresher course on bathroom accessories.
Yes, and even the rare current Republican leaders of higher stature like
McCain can't seem to maintain a consistency in their principles. It's disgusting.
>> It was too bad about Newt Gingrich. After Bonior and Clinton smeared
>> Gingrich with completely fabricated ethics charges, Clinton had the
>> unmitigated gall to cry about "the politics of personal destruction" when
>> he himself was charged with perjury. The thing is, Clinton actually did
>> perjure himself, but managed to stay in office, while Gingrich was driven
>> from office even though all charges against him were dropped. Gingrich's
>> approval rating had fallen to 45% and he felt he could no longer function.
>> By that standard, all of Congress ought to resign today.
Politics and governing are VERY complex occupations, requiring
compromises and openness - and FAR less name-calling and obvious
deceptions (and you can guess what "side" I'm referring to here...;-).
> Indeed. According to the latest Rasmussen Reports polls on Congress
> (August 30):
> 57% of voters would like to replace the entire Congress and start over
If they followed the (*constructive, honest, and hardworking...*)
members around for a while, they would have a new and rather deep
appreciation for how hard some of the members do work, how much
they really do to help their constituents (including MANY individuals),
and have much greater respect for how much they care about improving
people's welfare, rather than merely lining up cushy future jobs or
accruing additional power. It is sad that the uninformed (or those
misled by the likes of "Boner" and some others) have come to think
of legislators the way they do. The "rap" is not deserved by all by most...
> 70% of unaffiliated voters would like to do that
They don't bother to vote, so they are unlikely to become informed
about issues, let alone candidates.
> 59% of voters think members of Congress are overpaid
Trade a day with one and I'll bet that that would quickly change a
mind or two...! ;-)
> Only 14% give Congress Good or Excellent for overall performance
Also sad, but think of the obstacles to accomplishing anything that are put
up by circumstances both real and "caused". It's a wonder anything gets
done - but look how much has been done in the first six months of
Obama's presidency with the help of Congress. (You know, little things
like preventing financial collapse, slowing a deep recession, filling out
the posts in the administrative side of government with excellent people,
getting a good choice placed on the Supreme Court, working toward
health care reform, etc. - much more than other recent administrations
and congresses have accomplished in such a short time.)
> Only 16% believe it's very likely Congress will address the most important
> issues
Like......? (See above.)
> 75% say members of Congress are more interested in their own careers than in
> helping people
Also see above. What can one do when people who know little about
what actually happens answer polls that are then meaningless except
as expressions of what people feel (and what is the value of that?)?
Yes, we should have more emphasis on civics in our schools. We should
encourage people to both read and THINK CRITICALLY more than
they do - and not to just "soak up" what is prepackaged and broadcast,
which is often entertainment or propaganda passing as news.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message news:BvydnYaE9rm6KjbXnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@giganews.com...
> The LAST thing we need is a single-payer system that gives the consumer
> nowhere else to go, no other choices.
Um, guess what Medicare is? Yup, a "single-payer" system - and it
is efficient in terms of overhead costs, does not eliminate any choices
for anything, and its users are just about universally happy with it...
Gosh............., maybe we should take some lessons from this? 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
<"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu>
wrote in message news:h8gkii$olq$1@news.acm.uiuc.edu...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:BvydnYaE9rm6KjbXnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> The LAST thing we need is a single-payer system that gives
>>> the consumer nowhere else to go, no other choices.
>> Um, guess what Medicare is? Yup, a "single-payer" system - and it
>> is efficient in terms of overhead costs, does not eliminate any choices
>> for anything, and its users are just about universally happy with it...
>> Gosh............., maybe we should take some lessons from this? 8^)
>> --DR
> There are two problems with Medicare:
>
> 1) it is grossly inadequate, needing private plans to supplement it
Have you heard of "Advantage" plans? Probably not, since private
insurance companies (and even AARP) don't want you to know
about them. Well, let me tell you a story... Even after consulting
with advisors on Medicare and doing what I could to research
Medicare plans, the best I could find were either paying the $96
a month for Medicare (everyone on it pays this, but its coverage
is rather basic - but good for the worst that could happen), paying
the $96 a month plus the cost of "supplemental insurance" like
AARP's, or those two plus "Part D" drug coverage (my drugs
can run as high as $10,000 a year if uninsured) - or combine the
$96 Medicare with the $195 per month excellent insurance I can
get through my partner's employer. My income is VERY limited,
so any of these choices with health coverage leaves me with a very
small income from what was a SS disability income. Then a chance
mention in a conversation with a friend resulted in hearing about
"Advantage" plans. These cover in lieu of supplemental insurance
and also "part D", and they administer the whole works, and the
cost above $96/month is from $0 to $48/month! Now we're
talking! ;-) But, there is still that pesky "Donut Hole" during which
those on expensive drugs pay 100% after they cross the threshold,
until the out-of-pocket reaches the other side. But wait, there's
more! A chance encounter with a grocery store druggist revealed
that in NYS (and likely in many other states), a program available
at nominal cost from the state provides $28/month toward the
Advantage plan (so Medicare-basic + supplemental + "D" is a total
of $116 for me, not the over $300 of other options, AND, Epic
pays for most of the drug costs through the "Donut Hole" so my
costs then are $43/month rather than well over $800/month. So,
yuh, HOORAY for government-run medical programs! And I can
choose any doctor or facility I want, and I have coverage regardless
of preexisting conditions - and my coverage will not disappear or
the rates increase if I acquire a new very expensive ailment. Nice,
huh?
> 2) it is a fiscal disaster ... the government pays only fraction of the
> cost, usually very late, requiring the providers to charge
> private patients much more than they otherwise would.
While many doctors (the especially high priced ones) do not like
Medicare, many do since at least under my plan, there is single
payer billing, they are guaranteed payment, and they are paid
within two weeks of billing. All doctors and facilities I contacted
here accept my plan, since it works so well for them (even the
ones I consider "over-chargers"...;-).
> All this could be fixed, of course, but it would cast far more.
Perhaps not, if everyone were covered and paying into the system.
> The major problem with a "government option" is that the same
> inadequate funding scheme would be used ... and those not
> on that "option" would have to pay for those who are. That,
> of course, is the whole idea, well known to the leftist planners.
> The idea is to use the "option" to drive private plans
> out of existence.
>
> Doug MCDonald
BTW, my rather wonderful Advantage plan *IS* a private
plan, run by a large corporation. Guess it goes to show that
with a little tweaking, a "single-payer" system using private
resources can work very well. No need for "ideologies"...;-)
At this point for me, "a public option" would need to be
"awfully durn gud" for me to switch to it! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message news:16mdnVJ3ks-MXDbXnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h8ge3r$3c7$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
>> news:BvydnYaE9rm6KjbXnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> The LAST thing we need is a single-payer system that gives the consumer
>>> nowhere else to go, no other choices.
>> Um, guess what Medicare is? Yup, a "single-payer" system - and it
>> is [generally] efficient in terms of overhead costs, does not eliminate any
>> choices for anything, and its users are just about universally happy with it...
>> Gosh............., maybe we should take some lessons from this? 8^)
>> --DR
> Take a look at this, for just one example out of what must be
> millions:
> http://healthwise-everythinghealth.blogspot.com/2009/03/no-wonder-medicare-is-broke.html
Of course there is such as this in ANY system where there is not VERY
close control (and you would prefer that there were???). This sort of
nonsense can and should be controlled at the consumer/supplier end
(in the cited instance, pay the doctor out of pocket the $22 instead of the
copay on the $900 charge - it would likely have been MUCH cheaper
that way). And this kind of nonsense is hardly unique to Medicare. I was
once charged as an uninsured patient at a local ER $800 PLUS $50
since I was paying the bill!!! I should have refused to pay the $50 part
of the bill, but I didn't... Part of improving all of this is becoming better,
more-informed consumers, and when a provider doesn't provide, move
on (as I did with three durable medical equipment providers until I found
one who served MY needs). Nice to have a choice of providers, as we
do under single-payer Medicare...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message news:hN6dnfludemKgDHXnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h8gukd$8gr$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
>> news:16mdnVJ3ks-MXDbXnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h8ge3r$3c7$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:BvydnYaE9rm6KjbXnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> The LAST thing we need is a single-payer system that gives the consumer
>>>>> nowhere else to go, no other choices.
>>>> Um, guess what Medicare is? Yup, a "single-payer" system - and it is
>>>> [generally] efficient in terms of overhead costs, does not eliminate any
>>>> choices for anything, and its users are just about universally happy
>>>> with it...
>>>> Gosh............., maybe we should take some lessons from this? 8^)
>>>> --DR
>>> Take a look at this, for just one example out of what must be millions:
>>> http://healthwise-everythinghealth.blogspot.com/2009/03/no-wonder-medicare-is-broke.html
>> Of course there is such as this in ANY system where there is not VERY
>> close control (and you would prefer that there were???). This sort of
>> nonsense can and should be controlled at the consumer/supplier end
>> (in the cited instance, pay the doctor out of pocket the $22 instead of
>> the copay on the $900 charge - it would likely have been MUCH
>> cheaper that way).
> Not for the patient, since Medicare evidently settled the inflated bill
> somehow. If the patient doesn't pay, why would he care what Medicare
> ends up paying?
I would. It's called "responsibility". Odd concept, huh? I would have
reported that blood-sucking DME and paid that minor $22 myself.
>> And this kind of nonsense is hardly unique to Medicare. I was
>> once charged as an uninsured patient at a local ER $800 PLUS $50
>> since I was paying the bill!!! I should have refused to pay the $50 part
>> of the bill, but I didn't... Part of improving all of this is becoming better,
>> more-informed consumers, and when a provider doesn't provide, move
>> on (as I did with three durable medical equipment providers until I found
>> one who served MY needs). Nice to have a choice of providers, as we
>> do under single-payer Medicare...;-)
> Do you not understand that the Obama plan includes making deep cuts in
> Medicare in order to help pay for the new health care plan?
Yes, I do understand that with a GOOD, single-payer system FOR ALL,
changes would come FOR ALL - and yes, I would prefer this (and it
would be cheaper FOR ALL, including me, in the end (REALLY do take
a serious look at the health care systems used in ALL OTHER ADVANCED
INDUSTRIAL NATIONS!!! They WORK!
> And anyway, what
> makes you think you'll still have that nice choice of providers once it's an
> all-government system?
Again, look elsewhere at how it really does work instead of burying
your head in the sand and making claims.
> The main reason you were charged an outrageously stiff ER fee (as any
> uninsured person is) is that they have to make up somehow their heavy losses
> under Medicare payments. It's not just you, it's anyone who isn't insured.
Who often doesn't pay anything - like a friend who is less than financially
wise, and had $40,000 emergency treatment while on a road trip. The
hospital and surgeons are unlikely to see any of it. And, if doctors don't like
their Medicare payments, why do all here accept my plan? They could refuse
it, but they don't. One suspects that the main reason why is that receiving
guaranteed reasonable payments for services rendered is more attractive
than the dealing with common billing/collection difficulties...
> When I get my statements for medical care I'm astounded at the enormous
> difference between the provider's fee and what they actually have to settle
> for under Medicare. This is for any and all treatments, from cataract
> surgery to radiation therapy etc. etc.
The same was true under my private insurance - and it represents the
financial power of collectivization (and how much the single uninsured
person is essentially robbed by the system). With a single-payer system
with ALL included as both payers and beneficiaries, this nonsense
ceases to exist. Again, ask those in other countries (both providers and
beneficiaries) if they like their systems. Most do.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message news:-oadnaZ_tYGq1DHXnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Largely because of all this I'm still in excellent health at age 80. In the
> UK the death rate from prostate cancer, for example, is several times higher
> than in the U.S., and this is attributable to the fact that early detection
> is a very important factor and here in the U.S. we get much more in the way
> of screening for it. The death rate from prostate cancer has fallen four
> times faster in the U.S. than in the UK.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-560161/Prostate-cancer-death-rate-falls-times-faster-U-S-UK-routine-screening.html
Odd, then, that under my single-payer Medicare plan I get yearly prostate
and free yearly colonoscopies. Oh, I guess the reason may be that even
expensive preventive exams like colonoscopies are far cheaper than treating
the cancer after acquiring it... Kinda makes sense, doesn't it...? ;-)
> It's all rationed in Britain's National Health System, you see. Rationing of
> screening and treatment saves money because many of the afflicted die
> relatively early, which saves a great deal of expense.
This is just nonsense. BTW, it was rather funny when some business
magazine opined in an editorial that if Stephen Hawking, a well-known
astronomer-physicist with ALS for 45 years, had lived in the US and
had to depend on public health care, he would have died long ago.
The idiots didn't think to look him up in Google, or they would have
discovered that he IS a citizen of the UK, is treated there - and later
he publicly stated that if it had not been for his excellent care under
the NIH, he would not have survived... Again, "SHEESH!" 8^)
> You can have it. I don't want it. I just want the gummint to keep its hands
> off my health care.
Then renounce your Medicare, 'cuz guess who administers it (very
well, thank you), and also pays the bulk of your medical bills directly
to providers...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message news:KqydnfjX77c6pTDXnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h8j4hs$l5o$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> Odd, then, that under my single-payer Medicare plan I get yearly prostate
>> and free yearly colonoscopies. Oh, I guess the reason may be that even
>> expensive preventive exams like colonoscopies are far cheaper than treating
>> the cancer after acquiring it... Kinda makes sense, doesn't it...? ;-)
> If Medicare is really your ONLY insurer rather than just the primary, I
> suspect your arrangement is very unusual. I have Medicare Parts A and B, the
> latter is paid for out of my Social Security, and my secondary insurer is a
> private insurance plan that's part of my retirement package. Of all the
> retired people I know, not one has ONLY Medicare for health insurance.
Then you did not read an earlier post of mine... You can get the usual
combination of "Part A" (free), "Part B" ($96/month), a supplemental
insurance policy to "fill-in" these somewhat (expensive), plus "Part D"
drug coverage (various costs, depending on coverage and drugs covered).
These are mostly administered separately. But, at least in three states in
the US I know of (and likely the rest...), you can instead get a private
"Advantage" Plan for which you still pay $96/month, plus the cost of
the plan (minor) - and at least some states (for a minor fee) have programs
that both offset this minor cost and reduce the drug costs considerably
through the "Donut Hole" to relatively minor amounts (for me, $43/month
instead of over $800/month). The Advantage plan administers the whole
works (A,B, supplemental, and D) as a unit, acting as a single payer for
all services, minus copays. For me, then, the whole works is about
$125/month for everything, plus reasonable copays - and the NYS Epic
part covers one heck of a lot of my drug expense for just about nothing.
>> I get yearly prostate
>> and free yearly colonoscopies. Oh, I guess the reason may be that even
>> expensive preventive exams like colonoscopies are far cheaper than
>> treating
>> the cancer after acquiring it... Kinda makes sense, doesn't it...? ;-)
> From a strictly economical point of view, it makes more sense not to screen
> or treat people so much after a certain age, but let them just sicken and
> die. That's less expensive than continuing screening and treatment, which is
> presumably why Canada and Britain more or less do it that way with their
> single-payer systems. From the PATIENT'S point of view, yes, of course it
> makes more sense to have regular (expensive) tests done and whatever
> (expensive) treatment may be called for.
As I said, mine are free (one a year) on my Advantage plan. Age, preexisting
conditions, etc. have nothing to do with it. Heck, they even offer to pay for a
health club membership for me! Kinda makes you think they really do want to
keep people healthy instead of "letting them just sicken and die"...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message news:0vSdnZ2-bvRlyzDXnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h8jgkj$gvd$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> Then you did not read an earlier post of mine... You can get the usual
>> combination of "Part A" (free), "Part B" ($96/month), a supplemental
>> insurance policy to "fill-in" these somewhat (expensive), plus "Part D"
>> drug coverage (various costs, depending on coverage and drugs covered).
> You're right, I did not read that.
>> These are mostly administered separately. But, at least in three states in
>> the US I know of (and likely the rest...), you can instead get a private
>> "Advantage" Plan for which you still pay $96/month, plus the cost of
>> the plan (minor) - and at least some states (for a minor fee) have programs
>> that both offset this minor cost and reduce the drug costs considerably
>> through the "Donut Hole" to relatively minor amounts (for me, $43/month
>> instead of over $800/month). The Advantage plan administers the whole
>> works (A,B, supplemental, and D) as a unit, acting as a single payer for
>> all services, minus copays. For me, then, the whole works is about
>> $125/month for everything, plus reasonable copays - and the NYS Epic
>> part covers one heck of a lot of my drug expense for just about nothing.
> OK. That sounds fine, but with the "Advantage" Plan you describe I wouldn't
> call it a single-payer plan even if you're only billed by one organization.
Well, a single payer for the services is kinda "single-payer" by even more
than by definition (I'd call it "by identity"...;-) But actually, I'm billed by
three different organizations (Medicare B, Advantage, and Epic, but the
payments for services, supplies, and drugs are made by a single organization,
at least in appearance from this end, and mostly (except for part of the drugs
if expenses are high) also from the providers' end.
> Having the four plans administered by one organization makes sense, but
> "single payer" generally means "100% government," and the supplemental plan
> you mention is non-government, correct?
We have been thinking of "single-payer" as the government providing both
payment and administration, but the Advantage plan becomes the "single
payer" by means of administering the funds provided by the government.
It happens that my drug needs run me into problems with the "donut hole"
in the D part of the Advantage plan, and Epic steps in for me and supplies
most of the needed financing, plus part of the already moderate monthly
cost of the Advantage plan. So, from my point of view, and all but the
druggist's point of view during part of the year, this is a "single-payer"
system. I could see this working well for everyone if the D part were
corrected, and if everyone took part. I would even be willing to accept
higher monthly rates to accomplish this - but I would like to see a public
option also be available to provide basic (perhaps lesser) coverage for
those with less money, or better yet maybe would be some sort of income
related sliding fee scale for this option.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:A-idndhVOrLKyTPXnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h8jr8o$9ue$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> We have been thinking of "single-payer" as the government providing both
>> payment and administration, but the Advantage plan becomes the "single
>> payer" by means of administering the funds provided by the government.
>> It happens that my drug needs run me into problems with the "donut hole"
>> in the D part of the Advantage plan, and Epic steps in for me and supplies
>> most of the needed financing, plus part of the already moderate monthly
>> cost of the Advantage plan. So, from my point of view, and all but the
>> druggist's point of view during part of the year, this is a "single-payer"
>> system. I could see this working well for everyone if the D part were
>> corrected, and if everyone took part. I would even be willing to accept
>> higher monthly rates to accomplish this - but I would like to see a public
>> option also be available to provide basic (perhaps lesser) coverage for
>> those with less money, or better yet maybe would be some sort of income
>> related sliding fee scale for this option.
>> --DR
> Another sticky area there is that many (probably most) young adults don't
> feel they need health insurance and don't want to pay for it. The
> Obama/Democrats plan as I understand it is to FORCE everyone to have it,
> which may mean requiring them to buy it themselves if no one else will pay
> for it -- and hit them with a stiff fine if they don't buy it. While the
> benefits of this (to those who actually do need it) are obvious, there are
> serious problems with the idea of forcing someone to buy something he
> doesn't want to buy.
Yes. Preferable always is a "do what you want, the potential consequences
be damned" philosophy - and I also look back on things I did in my youth
and shudder with horror and amazement that I escaped several times with
my life, without injury, and without financial ruin. BUT. The time for our
collective irresponsibility with medical coverage is now over (the problems
that can result from this irresponsibility are now obvious), and to recognize
that ALL citizens (but some more than others - depending on ability to pay)
need to step up and contribute either directly in the form of premiums, or
less directly in the form of taxes (a precedent for the former is the
requirement to have liability insurance before being permitted to drive, and
for the latter is regular payroll deductions). The medical coverage could be
administered by private insurers, a government program like Medicare, or
a combination (as now exists with Medicare-private combinations). Since
we already pay vast sums for our current system (with much waste),
improving its efficiencies and making revenue universally obtained may
very well generate much, most, or even all of the needed resources for
providing good universal health care with minimal costs added for
individuals at the time service is provided. Then, we could stop being
financially afraid of medical emergencies, long-term illnesses, losing jobs
(and insurance) or trapped in jobs to keep insurances, having insurance
unavailable or extremely expensive with preexisting conditions, being cut
off by private insurers after expensive-to-treat ailments are discovered,
etc., etc., etc. Will all this take a period of time for making adjustments
and getting it right? Of course - but it would be worth it.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message news:0P-dnSiqvIaH8TPXnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h8lngl$7dr$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>> Another sticky area there is that many (probably most) young adults don't
>>> feel they need health insurance and don't want to pay for it. The
>>> Obama/Democrats plan as I understand it is to FORCE everyone to have it,
>>> which may mean requiring them to buy it themselves if no one else will
>>> pay for it -- and hit them with a stiff fine if they don't buy it. While
>>> the benefits of this (to those who actually do need it) are obvious,
>>> there are serious problems with the idea of forcing someone to buy
>>> something he doesn't want to buy.
>> Yes. Preferable always is a "do what you want, the potential consequences
>> be damned" philosophy - and I also look back on things I did in my youth
>> and shudder with horror and amazement that I escaped several times with
>> my life, without injury, and without financial ruin. BUT. The time for our
>> collective irresponsibility with medical coverage is now over (the problems
>> that can result from this irresponsibility are now obvious), and to recognize
>> that ALL citizens (but some more than others - depending on ability to pay)
>> need to step up and contribute either directly in the form of premiums, or
>> less directly in the form of taxes (a precedent for the former is the
>> requirement to have liability insurance before being permitted to drive, and
>> for the latter is regular payroll deductions). The medical coverage could be
>> administered by private insurers, a government program like Medicare, or
>> a combination (as now exists with Medicare-private combinations). Since
>> we already pay vast sums for our current system (with much waste),
>> improving its efficiencies and making revenue universally obtained may
>> very well generate much, most, or even all of the needed resources for
>> providing good universal health care with minimal costs added for
>> individuals at the time service is provided. Then, we could stop being
>> financially afraid of medical emergencies, long-term illnesses, losing jobs
>> (and insurance) or trapped in jobs to keep insurances, having insurance
>> unavailable or extremely expensive with preexisting conditions, being cut
>> off by private insurers after expensive-to-treat ailments are discovered,
>> etc., etc., etc. Will all this take a period of time for making adjustments
>> and getting it right? Of course - but it would be worth it.
>> --DR
> What I am leery of is the government taking it over completely, which is
> exactly what Obama has previously said he wants and surely still does, even
> if he isn't so forthright about it now. I'm also strongly against that part
> of the health care scheme that is Obama's payback to the unions for the
> millions they spent helping to get him elected.
I don't understand this fear of government regulation and/or taking over
of anything, especially if that is necessary for things like road-building,
public utilities like gas and electric, economic markets, international trade,
health care, schools, parks, the military, etc., etc. etc. to function well - and
to try to minimize corporate abuses that can negatively affect us. I consider
this fear of government to be irrational so long as strong democratic
principles are maintained, and people respect these institutions that insure
this. What has been disturbing to me lately is the growing distrust of these
institutions and the individuals who represent them (and us) by those who
appear to know so very little about civics and history - or care. What has
been even more disturbing is that these people are being led astray by
demagogues who really must know what they are doing - but appear not
to care how destructive their actions may be ("RL", "JB", "H", and "SP"
come quickly to mind as examples....). This can eventually be very
destructive to our democracy if it continues. I guess every once in a while
there is an age and place during which and where ignorance is exalted,
and intelligence and wisdom are condemned. For extreme examples, I
think of Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany, Chairman
Mao's China (with the "Great Leap Forward", a misnomer if ever there
was one...). It is in such places that "liberal" (free) thought is suppressed,
especially in the universities and in literature and the news media, and new
ideas are strongly discouraged. I trust the current irresponsible behavior
of some now here will not result in this, as it has in the past (even here...).
> There are plenty of things the Congress could be doing to lower health care
> costs that it isn't doing. Tort reform, for one. Ridiculous jury awards have
> run up enormously the costs of doctors' malpractice insurance, which one way
> or another they have to pass on to patients. Billions have been lost and
> undoubtedly are still being lost to fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. Laws
> preventing consumers from shopping for insurance across state lines restrict
> competition and thereby run up costs. Ditto for laws preventing consumers
> for buyng the same medications at far lower cost from foreign sources.
All of this is reasonable material for discussion...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:tLOdnSHTgO47GTPXnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
[Most deleted, since you see "bogymen" under the beds from the left, and
I see them from the right...]
>> I guess every once in a
>> while there is an age and place during which and where ignorance is
>> exalted, and intelligence and wisdom are condemned. For extreme
>> examples, I think of Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's USSR, Hitler's
>> Germany, Chairman Mao's China (with the "Great Leap Forward",
>> a misnomer if ever there
> Those were all RADICAL LEFTISTS, David. More like Barack Obama, by far the
> most radical leftist we've ever had as president. The guy we've got in the
> White House now is the one you should be worried about.
THIS IS A - B - S - U - R - D ! ! ! ! And, those named despots were
anything but "leftists", regardless of what names (only) that some of them
tried to hide behind. They defined ultimate right-wing power-hungry
cultist despotism, and they made every attempt to crush all on the left
(NOT those on the right). And, BTW one of the "tricks" of the extreme
right has always been to hide under the mantles of religion (sound familiar,
with "mega-churches"?), free enterprise (or "capitalism" - but in the extreme
as with the unfettered form of corporate freedom of the 19th century that
reduced most people to near slavery, and the more recent corporate greed
that nearly destroyed our economic system), state identity (as with unelected
kings, "dear-leaders", sultans, or whatever name someone who could grab
enough power or develop enough fear could shove down peoples' throats),
or ideology (Marxism, Nazism, and all the other "isms" that have a single
person at their centers). If you fear "socialism" so much, look at the few
countries that really do have it. Do their populations regard themselves as
"oppressed"? No-o-o-o-o-o...... Gosh, golly-gee! Amazing, huh? I guess
I thought you were beginning to think through some of this, but, I guess not.
Again - I highly recommend to people that they learn to THINK critically
on their own (and maybe then they would be less likely to get sucked into
cults, into supporting the political views of those who act against their own
interests, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. etc., etc., etc.).
And, hey, once you start doing it, thinking for yourself can actually be both
rewarding, and fun! ;-)
But, enough! (Trying to reason with some people is like trying to push water
up a hill by hand - it is pointless.)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:87iqfmq1hv.fld@apaflo.com...
> "Neil Harrington" <not@home.today> wrote:
>>The U.S. homicide rate is two to three times higher than in other industrial
>>nations. And we drive a lot more than others, so our auto fatality rate of
>>14.24 deaths per 100,000 people is higher than in Germany (6.19), France
>>(7.4) or Canada (9.25). Add to this, we eat far more than other countries on
>>average, contributing to higher levels of heart disease, stroke, diabetes
>>and cancer.
>>
>>When all those factors are figured in, according to a recent study by Robert
>>Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa,
>>Americans actually live longer than people in other countries - thanks
>>mainly to our excellent health care.
> Your response is a non sequitur.
>
> There are better indicators of health care quality than
> longevity.
But it is also a very good one, added to the one below...
> For example the infant mortality rate is
> considered to be a very good indicator, and the numbers
> show just how well the US does (despite spending more
> than twice as much money as for health care):
>
> 1: Singapore (2.31)
> 2: Burmuda (2.46)
> 3: Sweden (2.75)
> 4: Japan (2.79)
> 5: Hong Kong (2.92)
> ...
> 8: France (3.33)
> 9: Finland (3.47)
> ...
> 11: Norway (3.58)
> ...
> 15: Germany (3.99)
> 16: Switzerland (4.18)
> ...
> 18: Israel (4.22)
> ...
> 21: Korea, South (4.26)
> 22: Denmark (4.34)
> ...
> 29: Australia (4.75)
> ...
> 32: United Kingdom (4.85)
> 33: New Zealand (4.92)
> ...
> 36: Canada (5.04)
> 37: Taiwan (5.35)
> ...
> 44: Cuba (5.82)
> ...
> 45: United States (6.26)
>
> Even *Cuba* does better than the US, not to mention how
> many of the others have "socialized health care"!
>
> And of all those, the US spent more than twice as much
> per capita (> $6000) on health care with the single
> exception that we only spend 1-1/2 times Switzerland
> ($4000). Of course Switzerland ranks 16th on the list
> with an infant mortality rate of 4.18 compared to the US
> being 45th with a rate of 6.26.
>
> We spend 1.5 times what Switzerland does, but our babies
> die at a rate 1.5 times theirs!
>
> The fact is that the best medical care in the world is
> available in the US... but it is only available to a
> relatively small portion of our citizens. And those
> citizens pay vastly more than anyone else in the world,
> while they proudly let their neighbors die from a *lack*
> of even the basic health care that is available to
> people who live in other industrialized nations.
>
> Advocating the continuation of our system of medical care
> is disgustingly ignorant.
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Thanks for yet another good "reality check", not that it will
do much good with those who choose to believe myths than
to examine data, unfortunately...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <not@home.today> wrote in message news:C_udnRTkrtEkiDDXnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> And BTW the fact that YOU [Alan Browne] remain unconvinced by rational
> argument
Huh??? 8^)
> does not mean that "others" suffer the same disability.
Gee - I just looked through this thread and found --
A) Almost no posts by Alan Browne in this thread.
B) What few posts existed consisted almost entirely
of calls to keep discussion on-topic for photography.
C) Expressed little discernable indication concerning
which side of this discussion Alan Browne favors.
Hmmm.....8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2009091309555850878-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2009-09-13 03:11:49 -0700, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> said:
>> What has some local inter-party politics of a foreign country got to do
>> with photography?
> Well they got some pretty candid shots of all the participants, and the
> distribution was widespread. Without cameras and a few different types
> of photography, how would we have known?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
8^)
But, for those who are not in the US and are understandably bored
with what appears to be only a local-to-the-US issue (especially since
many of you know from experience with it that your single-payer
"socialist" solution to providing health care does in fact work very
well, and you may wonder why we don't just look at it from the point
of view of your experience), there is more involved - and I fear, much
as I generally abhor "doom-and-gloom" prognostications and conspiracy
theories, things are afoot here that are scary. From a distrust of government,
to the President, and courts, with a growing disrespect for the basic social
institutions, a growing "know-nothing" movements (like the "Tea-Baggers"),
all fed by some extremist media "professionals" that have gutted the
meaning of news as accurate reporting of facts and events on some
networks and major news programs and web sites, plus some "shady"
Christian organizations that have included a large number of publicly
discredited members who are prominent in government and religion, to
the rise of self-styled (and well-armed) militias which claim that the
government is oppressive and it is their duty to fight it. And then there
are the politicians, including governors, who speak of state secessions -
and, beneath all this junk appears to be a hatred for President Obama,
which can only be racism at its worst (much as we had hoped to be
well beyond that absurdity), as evidenced by the "birthers" who deny
Obama's citizenship in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary,
and the constant "demonizing" of someone who is so very far from being
evil as to be almost the epitome of honor, honesty, intelligence, and goodwill.
This does appear to be a time of "non-thinking" and ignorance among a
truly scary proportion of our population - with a mythological nostalgic
overlay of "wishing for things as they were". Hmmm... I guess that would
be, to be charitable, when people were "friendlier", had less crime, and
felt secure in leaving their houses and cars unlocked. Sounds nice (and
every house had a white picket fence around it, and a new Ford or
Chevrolet in the driveway, and there were none of them thar "illegals"
around to weigh down the economy [NOT!..;-]) - but this was a time
when the "Nig-graz" were expected to "keep their place" out of sight and
to serve in menial jobs at low wages, be humiliated by being required to
use separate facilities of all kinds, and to not expect to get a decent public
education. Great, huh? Then along comes an "uppity" (a VERY charged
word here in race relations) Black person of great abilities who is
overwhelmingly voted into the Presidency - and some still cannot accept
this. But, rather than being honest about it (they would look as stupid as
they are...), they try their best to undermine a potentially great President
by any method, fair or foul. So, having saved the economy from disaster,
people complain about the "bank bailout" and "auto bailouts". Having had
the temerity to FINALLY attack our extreme deficit resulting from health
care costs, people blindly holler about "socialists" (or Nazis - a complete
absurdity). And it will go on and on, with the deceptions, prevarications,
and downright lies about policies and a president that have some chance
of freeing us from our current messes, whether in war, international
relations, health care, the economy (and deficit), etc., mostly dumped on
us by our previous president. I guess the Right figures that "winning" is
more important than the welfare of the country and its citizens...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2009091312135077923-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2009-09-13 11:39:56 -0700, "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> said:
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2009091309555850878-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2009-09-13 03:11:49 -0700, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> said:
>>>> What has some local inter-party politics of a foreign country got to do
>>>> with photography?
>>> Well they got some pretty candid shots of all the participants, and the
>>> distribution was widespread. Without cameras and a few
>>> different types of photography, how would we have known?
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Savageduck
>> 8^)
>>
>> But, for those who are not in the US and are understandably bored
>> with what appears to be only a local-to-the-US issue (especially since
>> many of you know from experience with it that your single-payer
>> "socialist" solution to providing health care does in fact work very
>> well, and you may wonder why we don't just look at it from the point
>> of view of your experience), there is more involved - and I fear, much
>> as I generally abhor "doom-and-gloom" prognostications and conspiracy
>> theories, things are afoot here that are scary.
[Rest deleted for brevity - see the rest above...]
> Damn!
> When I was initially faced with the obvious verbosity of your
> explanation, I was prepared to write it off, until I read it.
> I have to agree with all you have expressed.
>
> To paraphrase Mencken; Never underestimate the potential for the
> American voter to impersonate sheep.
> :-)
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
I have never seen anything like this short of (MAYBE) during the "Commie
under every bed" era (with McCarthy and cohorts) and its resulting wholesale
shunning of anyone who expressed anything even faintly resembling a "liberal"
opinion (yuh, I know - the base form of that word means "free"...;-). It looks
like the Right is trying to do this again - but fortunately a large number of their
leaders have been occupied falling flat on their faces (but not enough, alas, to
keep us out of trouble - and their followers just don't seem to notice yet that
their leaders are repeatedly proving themselves to be hypocritical liars, and
they still feel free to call honorable leaders liars without any real justification...).
Yuck!
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message news:-LSdnTmqLZv-9DDXnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h8eh4u$k9j$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> Also see above. What can one do when people who know little about
>> what actually happens answer polls that are then meaningless except
>> as expressions of what people feel (and what is the value of that?)?
>> Yes, we should have more emphasis on civics in our schools. We should
>> encourage people to both read and THINK CRITICALLY more than
>> they do - and not to just "soak up" what is prepackaged and broadcast,
>> which is often entertainment or propaganda passing as news.
>> --DR
> Our schools have become socialist training grounds.....9 out of 10
> university instructors are liberals. Have you read any textbooks recently?
> They might as well have been written by card carrying communists. They are
> winning the battle simply by being better organized. The conservatives are
> "free thinkers" who want independence. The liberals want the government to
> do all their thinking and choice making for them, and are willing to
> organize to make it happen. So it will happen. I see a very bleak future
> indeed.....
HUH???!
I sure do fear "them thar edj-joo-kay-td lib-brulz wi' buks" FAR less
then the uneducated and thoughtless gun-toting "wild-west" sorts that
seem to have appeared in greater numbers lately...
OK, so what is it that you conservatives fear about education??? That
people will actually learn to think critically and on their own, and not just
follow the senseless rantings of the likes of Limbaugh? Hey, we can't
have the citizenry actually aware of our history, government operations,
and the Constitution, now can we? That makes it too hard to feed them
garbage and have them "eat it up"... And, I will tell you a secret. There
is a reason why the majority of university instructors and newsmen (but
not those on Fox "news", of course...) may be "lib-rulz" is 'cuz they be
reel brite peeple, git it? ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:pZGdnQzuct85vTLXnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> news:lgsta5d0t9e0b2tdmg8hsfb7o6s6qfqfde@4ax.com...
>>>Without our good health care, early screening and prompt and effective
>>>treatment etc., I'd probably be dead by now.
>> So you agree, then, that everyone in this country should have that.
> Well, I should. Health insurance continuing after retirement was a condition
> of my employment, arrived at by collective bargaining. These are things
> properly agreed on between employer and employee, and "everyone" does not
> necessarily get exactly the same compensation or benefits.
What a narrow view! "Gosh, I'm OK, so everyone else less fortunate
be hanged." Some of us understand that improving the greater good
helps ALL of us (including me) in the end. And, wait until your company,
in a cost saving move, reduces or eliminates your health benefits...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:h8q2uq$3qa$2@news.albasani.net...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> The main reason you [DR] were charged an outrageously stiff ER fee (as any
>> uninsured person is) is that they have to make up somehow their heavy losses
>> under Medicare payments [and for those who do-not/cannot pay, as a friend
>> did not, with a $40,000 emergency].
> Actually most of their costs are from doing paperwork dealing with
> insurance. Do you actually KNOW anyone in the business? Ever wonder why
> there are 3-4 office women per doctor? They are filling out insurance
> paperwork and WE are paying for them to be there.
>
> Stephanie
There is a reason why over 70% of doctors would like to see a single-payer
system instituted - it would reduce their billing costs, and they also could rely
on getting paid. This is why every service provider I contacted in my area
accepts my Medicare Advantage plan - which is also a single-payer system
from the provider's point of view (except for the time-of-service copays), and
it pays the provider within two weeks of billing. Neat, huh?
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:X4NDIGGR3LsKFATJ@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> Driving is a choice... living (unless you commit suicide) is not.
> Everyone alive needs healthcare.
>
> All civilised societies. Have state healthcare and those who can afford
> it have the choice of additional private healthcare.
> --
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
A nice summation, but too elegant for dunderheads with their
heads in the sand who choose not to look at what works so
well elsewhere ('cuz it's "socialist"...), and who, if successful
in preventing true reform here, will continue our system of
incredible waste, extremely high public costs, and personal
health insecurity and potential economic disaster. All in the
name of "free enterprise"...
This is stupid.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:n730b5d53hriircm6uovv2f91hps1andun@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:02:47 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
> <secret@illumnati.net> wrote:
>>"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:h8otge01mt3@news7.newsguy.com...
>>> David Ruether wrote:
>>>> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:9ISdnVTeUPozWzLXnZ2dnVY3goqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> The short-sightedness and stupidity of the right is beyond words. --
>>>>> David J. Littleboy
>>>>> Tokyo, Japan
>>>> Gosh, you think so........?! 8^)
>>> The same is true for the left.
>>And to a noticeably greater degree.
> They do seem to be lacking in the "repeat the message ad nauseam"
> skills the right so excels in. Biggest mistake democrats make is to
> argue a point once or twice and then sit back like that's sufficient.
> For most folks it takes a lot more repetition. The right gets that.
Yes. The Democrats think that debunking an obvious lie or deception
should be sufficient, and that any (thinking...) person will then "get it"
and accept the truth - but the Republicans think that by repeating a lie
or deception, many people will eventually believe it, which unfortunately
appears to be true. How else is the "birthers", "tenthers", "death-panels",
"health-care-rationing", "abortion-and-illegals'-coverage-in-the-reform-bill",
"state-secession", etc. junk explained? I suspect this may underlie the
Right's unease with education - and the recent absurd hollering about
Obama's talk to school children. (We can't get the kids interested in
education, now can we? Otherwise they may learn to think critically, and
as a result, not just swallow repeated right-wing lies whole... That would
be terrible! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Twibil" <nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3aab8f79-88b8-426d-9a9b-57a21d65ecaa@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 15, 9:24 pm, "Neil Harrington" <sec...@illumnati.net> wrote:
[...]
Fact is that the cost of medical care has risen all out of proportion
to the income of the average wage earner, and medical problems that
could easily be paid for in the '40s and '50s are now costly enough to
put the guy on the street into a bankruptsy court if he has no medical
insurance.
If the fact that medical care in the US today costs slightly over
*twice* what it does anywhere else in the world doesn't make you
suspect that something has gone rotten in the medical industry, you're
simply not paying attention.
--It *should*, but..............................! ;-)
--Can't have no "socialism" no-how, no-way - 'cuz it's, well, just
--plain "un-American"! 8^)
--BTW, in the very early '60s, I spent a night in the hospital, billed
--$25. About seven years ago, I spent a night in a hospital, billed
--$2200. Both were for plain double rooms, not ICU...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message news:BdadncP-vJxLly3XnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@giganews.com...
[.......]
> Good points, and I agree with most of them. But my problem is the government
> insists on taking my tax money and giving it away to "the poor", or anyone
> else who makes less than I do, and I don't know how to stop this. It isn't
> their money. It's mine. But they have the power to steal it from me under
> this socialized system, and I don't know how to stop that. During election
> time, they advertise that if you vote for them, they will steal money from
> the rich and give it to the poor, and, since there are more who think of
> themselves as poor than rich, these people vote for them, and then they
> deliver what they promised.
[...]
I think you don't understand the predominant beliefs of the US electorate
very well... I think few see the election of Democrats as specifically to
"steal rich people's money so more can be given to (poor) me", as the
unbelievably odd (to some of us) "bill of goods" the Republicans have sold
to so many for so long that "supporting the interests of the rich is best for us
(the poor) because, well, someday we may also be rich - which is a fantasy,
but one that is widely held by Americans, especially now with widespread
popular lotteries in existence. BTW, this nonsense predates the "anything
socialistic is bad" myth sold also by those on the Right, who fail to mention
that much of what is taken for granted as basic services *is* socialistic...
Armed with these two myths, a disreputable bunch of rascals is often able
to draw roughly 50% of the electorate's votes. Pushing these myths, with
repeated lies and deceptions added, works for winning elections, alas...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2009091519003350878-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
> On 2009-09-15 18:52:02 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
>> On 2009-09-15 17:43:01 -0700, C J Campbell
>> <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> said:
>>> Blech. Between the John Birchers and the rabid socialists on this
>>> board, I wonder sometimes if I am the only one around here that is not
>>> a part of the lunatic fringe on left or right.
>> Be careful with labels, you are included in our fringe group of Nikon
>> users known to shoot birds.
>> ...and you know how crazy that seems to some.
> I shoot bears, too. And marmots. I'll shoot anything, any time.
>
> Crazy and proud of it.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
Uh-oh....! But, at least you admit to being crazy...! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message news:j8ednTpSpe1f7S3XnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
[...]
> This morning's (Wednesday) Investor's Business Daily has a front-page
> headline saying:
> "45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting
> If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul.
And in the last couple of days, well over 70% of doctors
supported the "public option" in another poll I caught on TV.
Good ol' polls can "say" whatever you want, I guess...! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message news:NuOdnRhHH69cSDLXnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h8o50d$73p$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
>> news:rPudnQsdb4ElgzLXnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
[Oh, why do I bother with this "waste of time", but here goes, again...]
>> ["Rightist" view of history excised - but I can't help but add, "Have
>> you ever heard of sweat shops, union-busting, the Irish potato famine,
> The IRISH POTATO FAMINE?! WTF does that have to do with left vs. right
> politics?
It refers to your claim that people came here from Europe for economic
reasons - but the Irish were pushed by famine, the Jews by oppression
in Germany, etc. So, where were the "hoards of French, English, Belgian,
etc." immigrants from Europe?
> "Union busting" -- of course. Anyone who criticizes union bosses or union
> thugs is accused of being a "union buster."
No. I was referring to the rather abusive treatment of poorly paid workers
with long hours and no rights who attempted to unionize to improve their
lot under what was essentially the "rule" of the companies that employed
them. They were brutally opposed by the companies, often with the help of
local police and imported gangs of company thugs.
>> the savings and loan debacle here, the wholesale imprisoning or killing
>> of intellectuals under supposedly "leftist" despotic regimes,
> Oh, so leftist despotic regimes were just "SUPPOSEDLY 'leftist' despotic
> regimes"! In other words, any of the oppressive and murderous leftist
> governments we've seen over the last century couldn't REALLY have been
> leftist because they did all those bad things.
Of course! If you call a regime "leftist", but then ignore the fact that it in no
way meets the definition for that label, then it is foolishness to call it leftist.
It clearly is not.
> Apparently no "REAL communists"
> ever existed -- one has to wonder why not, if it'd be such a wonderful
> system of government.
Real "Communists" did exist (and do...), but they generally renounce the
corrupted systems that were self-styled as "Communist" (but weren't).
Personally, I think that any of the idealistic pure-form "isms", whether
Communism or Capitalism, etc., are doomed to failure since they fail to
account for human nature and needs, both good and bad. I favor a highly
regulated capitalism as being the most likely to succeed - but elsewhere
in the world, modified socialism has worked very well. Here, unfortunately,
too many are stuck on labels and close their minds at the slightest "whiff"
of anything but "capitalism" to see possibilities - but that ain't the only game
around...;-)
>> the HUAC under Dies in the thirties and McCarthy in the 50's
> McCarthy had nothing to do with HUAC. For some reason this is a common
> misconception among people who evidently don't understand the difference
> between the House and the Senate.
Read the sentence...;-) But both influenced attitudes and engendered fears in
their times, directed against "them thar icky lefty bogymen hoo wil cum inna
nite tu eat yer kidz" ;-) They made it VERY difficult for anyone in the US to
write, perform, speak, teach, etc. anything outside of the "right, straight, and
narrow channel" of what they considered acceptable. And these "right-wingers"
did it with fear - the identifying tool of the truly Right. One defines people's
"Left/Rightness" not by what they call themselves but by what they do and how
they do it - which is why Communist Stalin, Mao, and Dear-Leader are by no
means "leftists" (and painfully obviously, they had far more interest in concentrating
power within their persons rather than improving the general well-being of their
citizenry, which would be characteristic of those on the left). (BTW, another
marker for rightism is the seeking of excessive personal wealth without concern
for its effect of impoverishing others, as occurs in unfettered Capitalism.) What
really is scary now, though, are the fears being again whipped up by deceitful
demagogues and some irresponsible news-media against anything "left", trying
to convince people that what is false is true (the "birthers", "tenthers", etc.), and
what is bad and really against their interests for them is good (no health care
reform, no credit reform, no financing to save our economic system from
collapse, no help for major industries to get them through a near depression, no
improvements in air pollution, no improvements in how we obtain and use energy,
no extension of equality in civil rights to all of our citizenry, etc., etc., etc., etc.).
Sure can't do any of those things, 'cuz they just bee tu "commie" (oh, I forgot - the
new "bogeyman word" is "socialistic"). Again, "SHEEEEEEEEEESH!!!!!!!!!!!"
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:M_CdnZWifcYMTCzXnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Here's why ObamaCare isn't going anywhere:
>
> From today's (Thursday's) IBD, front page:
[...]
[Watch out for your sources' credibility...!;-]
> _________________________
>
> ...and after all this negotiation it looks
> like they've reached a point where no one is going to budge any further.
>
> I think this is a good thing, the best of all possible results at this time.
> What they need to do is throw out the whole 1,018-page monstrosity which
> probably very few have actually read and even fewer really understand, and
> start over, settling just one thing at a time.
So, what else have they done in this rather considerable time, even
accepting MANY basic changes offered by the Republicans who
won't even vote for it anyway "after all this negotiation"? But, I agree
now with you that the whole thing SHOULD be thrown out - but
that a proper single-payer system should then be offered and voted
on, which is what the majority of people wanted in the first place. It
was "bipartisanship" that brought this to ruin, since that approach
can only work if both sides are truly willing to engage in it instead
of having one side pretending to, but then moving behind the scenes
to kill what they ostensibly have agreed to. THIS venal behavior IS
government at its worst - not "socialism", which can work really well,
thank you (and we use rather a lot of this "terrible" thing even now
in government...;-).
> Of course that would mean
> they couldn't bury a lot of favors for the union bosses in it, along with
> other special-interest treats. The inability to do that would make Obama and
> a lot of congresscritters on the left profoundly unhappy, but such is life.
This is just plain STUPID! What "union bosses"? What "treats"?
You are a piece of work. The ONLY evident powerful elements
with a huge economic stake in this and enormous influence over
Congressional members are (surprise!) the lobbyists for the health
insurance companies. Even the doctors, hospitals and staffs, and
drug companies have moved toward supporting health care reform.
It is only the insurance companies that stand to lose their huge
profit percentages that oppose it, and spend vast amounts of money
to do it with generous contributions to those in Congress who
vote for their interests And they also do it with advertising designed
to mislead and scare the public. Disgusting!
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dymphna" <Dymphna.3yo50s@no-mx.forums.travel.com> wrote in message news:Dymphna.3yo50s@no-mx.forums.travel.com...
> Stephanie, those who refuse to listen to other sources become stooges.
> You have no idea how much information the government media is not
> telling you. Right now the other sources are being run and told what to
> put on and not put on. They are protecting Obama and the democrats and
> deriding anyone who listens to anything else. That is typical of
> Marxists.
> --
> Dymphna
Government media? What government media? We have Fox "news"
that continually "reports" easily disprovable "facts", along with Rush
Limbaugh and other radio talk show hosts on the Right who prefer
"stirring the pot" and destroying things of value rather than telling the
(relatively dull) truth or working toward improving anything at all for
anyone, to religious zealots who pander to the least intelligent in their
flocks and like to stir up (anti-gay equality or) antigovernment
sentiments with inflammatory crap equating anything "socialistic" with evil.
Ever heard of demagoguery? It seems we are going through a period
during which it is the "in" thing - a time when it is "fashionable" to be
stupid, and to denigrate education and those who are more intelligent
and educated. We've been here before - remember the 50's?
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dymphna" <Dymphna.3ym9yn@no-mx.forums.travel.com> wrote in message
news:Dymphna.3ym9yn@no-mx.forums.travel.com...
> David Ruether;3019739 Wrote:
>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>> news:X4NDIGGR3LsKFATJ@phaedsys....
>> > Driving is a choice... living (unless you commit suicide) is not.
>> > Everyone alive needs healthcare.
>> >
>> > All civilised societies. Have state healthcare and those who can
>> > afford it have the choice of additional private healthcare.
>> > --
>> > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>> > \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
>> > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>> A nice summation, but too elegant for dunderheads with their
>> heads in the sand who choose not to look at what works so
>> well elsewhere ('cuz it's "socialist"...), and who, if successful
>> in preventing true reform here, will continue our system of
>> incredible waste, extremely high public costs, and personal
>> health insecurity and potential economic disaster. All in the
>> name of "free enterprise"...
>> This is stupid.
>> --DR
> As someone who has to deal with medicare and others who deal with
> medicare you don't have a clue. My son is disabled and well never work.
> Years after he got out of a hospital we were still getting notices about
> payment and trying to charge us.
>
> In countries that have it - they ration care. My priest has a mission
> in Lethbridge, Canada, which is not a small city for that area and
> covers many of the surrounding areas for medical. One of the men up
> there had a heart attack on a Thursday. There were no doctors to take
> care of him. They stabilized him on blood thinners and it was Monday
> before they could fly him to Calgary for a stint.
I've been in Lethbridge - it is rather small...
> It is not uncommon to have to wait at least 3 hours to see a doctor,
> assuming you have a doctor. If you don't have a family doctor you can
> expect to wait 10 hours to see one. Not my idea of practical.
>
> One of the priests from our order in the 80's had cancer. He was a
> citizen. He needed a ventilator in order to breathe. The government
> determined that on a specific date the machine would be turned off. Now
> he wanted to live. He was awake and alert. Two other priests scheduled
> to fly in and say Mass at the foot of his bed before he died, so he
> could receive Communion one last time before he died. The first one flew
> in, checked on him and went back to the airport to get the second. When
> they got back, the hospital refused to wait 20 minutes for them to say
> Mass so he could receive Communion.
These were unfortunate events (and REALLY unkind in this last case).
I assume they refer to experiences in Canada? But, they do appear
not to characterize similar systems in other countries with denser
populations and no such "brain drain" just across the border, as the
US represents relative to Canada.
> Please quite living in a vacuum and believing what the left is feeding
> you and check out what they are feeding you before it is too late! Our
> system is bad - but what they want to give you is far worse!
> --
> Dymphna
I tend to believe those who have fewer ulterior motives for deception,
and who lie far less often...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dymphna" <Dymphna.3yo50s@no-mx.forums.travel.com> wrote in message
news:Dymphna.3yo50s@no-mx.forums.travel.com...
> Stephanie, those who refuse to listen to other sources become stooges.
> You have no idea how much information the government media is not
> telling you. Right now the other sources are being run and told what to
> put on and not put on. They are protecting Obama and the democrats and
> deriding anyone who listens to anything else. That is typical of
> Marxists.
> --
> Dymphna
Well, what can one say to something as obviously "whacky" as this...?! :-)
Maybe, "Gosh, I promise from now on to listen only to Rush Limbaugh
and Rupert Murdoch's Fox News to hear the REAL truth"?
Yuh, right.....................! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:qsednc1_g-GRSCzXnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5o23b55mfet9t81m3eoenbich2p2uv8r51@4ax.com...
>> So here's some repetition of the truth...
>>
>> H.R. 3200: Sec 246 - NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
>>
>> Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for
>> affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully
>> present in the United States.
>>
>> http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/
> Already answered. There is nothing that will PREVENT Federal payments for
> illegal aliens, therefore the above is just more bullshit.
In order to qualify, illegals would need papers they do not have (hence
the term, "undocumented"...;-).
> Republicans tried repeatedly to get some provision in the bill preventing
> payments for illegals, and every attempt was blocked by Democrats. So
> obviously they know perfectly well that what they're claiming is nothing but
> lies. They refuse to allow any form of enforcement, so illegals will
> continue to get free treatment at taxpayer expense regardless of the
> phony-baloney statement above.
>
> Anyone with more intelligence than a gerbil understands this without
> difficulty.
Just gotta wonder...! Maybe those nasty Democrats rejected 'Bublican't
ideas for implanting ID and locator chips in everyone 'cept illegals, or for
just rounding up all the illegals and hauling them all off to the border, or???
READ THE BILL, NEIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message news:9ISdnVTeUPozWzLXnZ2dnVY3goqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> The short-sightedness and stupidity of the right is beyond words.
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
Gosh, you think so........?! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message news:_cGdndhJ2KOwRi7XnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Medicare is my primary insurance. After they pay their part of the bill,
> then my Blue Cross/Blue Shield of California pays what is left
> over.......They get around 1250 dollars a month from both me and Stanford
> University. Medicare gets less than 100 dollars a month from my social
> Security check. I get the statements from both insurers, so I know what I am
> talking about.....I have diabetes, so I interact with both the doctors and
> drug companies a lot......The statements, however are unintelligible and
> virtually meaningless. They were obviously designed to confuse. The
> terminology does not conform to the dictionary definition of the terms they
> use.
I have a Medicare Advantage Plan. This is an option that replaces
the administration of Medicare Part A, Part B, a supplemental plan,
and Part D with a single-payer system that service providers tend
to like (one billing entity, with payments supplied within two weeks
of billing). The cost for me is the basic Part B $96/month, plus the
cost of the Advantage Plan ($48 for me, although for a friend in
Florida, it is $0 with the same company, Humana), plus generally
minor copays. But wait! There's more! ;-) A program in NYS (Epic)
pays $28/month toward the Advantage Plan, and also most of my
drug costs through the "Donut Hole" (which for me is over half the
year), reducing that from over $800/month to about $43/month(!).
The cost of the Epic Plan for me is a little under $10/month. So, my
A, B, supplemental, D, and drug "donut hole" supplemental is --
$96 + $20 + $10 + copays, or $126/month + copays, which is not
bad at all, and both the providers and I are happy with it.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4ab4cb0e$0$1676$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> I have a Medicare Advantage Plan. This is an option that replaces
>> the administration of Medicare Part A, Part B, a supplemental plan,
>> and Part D with a single-payer system that service providers tend
>> to like (one billing entity, with payments supplied within two weeks
>> of billing). The cost for me is the basic Part B $96/month, plus the
>> cost of the Advantage Plan ($48 for me, although for a friend in
>> Florida, it is $0 with the same company, Humana)
> <snip>
> My mom in Florida has one of these plans from Humana. The local hospital
> in south Florida has a special room set aside for the children of
> parents that have Humana's Medicare Advantage Plan. It has a phone that
> you pick up that connects you directly to Humana, and all the walls are
> padded so you can beat your head against the wall while you are arguing
> with them. "No, we paid for the wheelchair rental which eliminates your
> eligibility for a lift chair." "No, that drug is not in the formulary,
> we want your doctor to try this other drug first, and if that doesn't
> work, and you're still alive, he can come back to us and we'll consider
> the new drug (the one that is known to be effective)." "No we won't
> approve you moving to the rehab facility in the hospital you're already
> in, we will transfer you to the one 20 miles away that we have a
> contract with, oh wait, they have no room, so maybe you don't need
> rehab." "Since you can't find you a place for rehab we'll send a PT to
> your house for home visits." "Oh we're only paying for one visit from a
> PT, that's all you need."
A friend has a Humana Advantage Plan in Florida, pays $0/month for
it, just had one of those noo-fangled prostate removals using two small
holes and giant 3D imaging of what is going on inside (this appears to
be superior to any other technique for removing the prostate without
negative after effects). It was covered (with reasonable copays) as
were the follow-up therapy sessions. Every one else I've talked to
from here and from Florida has been happy to have this plan - but as
with everything, there can be exceptions... And, heck, my plan even
offers free yearly colonoscopies and free memberships in health clubs
and help covering dieting programs (I think they see the advantages
to their bottom line of preventing ailments rather than treating them after
they develop...;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:dg38b5ddh47li24aiq7fe94kup3uuc6utl@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:10:32 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>>Medicare is my primary insurance. After they pay their part of the bill,
>>then my Blue Cross/Blue Shield of California pays what is left
>>over.......They get around 1250 dollars a month from both me and Stanford
>>University. Medicare gets less than 100 dollars a month from my social
>>Security check. I get the statements from both insurers, so I know what I am
>>talking about.....I have diabetes, so I interact with both the doctors and
>>drug companies a lot......The statements, however are unintelligible and
>>virtually meaningless. They were obviously designed to confuse. The
>>terminology does not conform to the dictionary definition of the terms they
>>use.
> You are paying more than double what I will pay for Medicare
> supplemental coverage. It might be because you have diabetes, or it
> might be because of the coverage available in your area.
>
> If you don't know whether or not you are getting the most economical
> package, you should be checking with someone who can help you. Anyone
> who can't understand a medical billing needs outside help.
>
> There are people available to help. Most localities have senior
> centers that can put you in touch with someone who understands the
> supplemental insurance situation. If you'd spend the same amount of
> time doing something about your problem as you do posting about your
> problem, you could probably solve it.
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
While I hate to defend "Bill Graham" here (;-]), I will point out that
it did take me more than a couple of weeks of hard researching
and consulting with a couple of Medicare advisors and signing
up for Medicare B at 67 (with "special dispensation" and therefore
without penalty) and AARP's supplemental coverage, plus being
on the way to a Part D plan when I realized that A), this was getting
rather expensive, and B), it wasn't any cheaper or as good as
adding the new $96 for Part B (now required due to circumstances)
and returning to adding the $195 cost for my old insurance. Then, a
happenstance conversation with a friend in Florida made me aware
of the Medicare Advantage Plan, and a happenstance encounter
with a grocery store druggist made me aware of NYS's wonderful
add-on Epic program (likely other states have similar programs...).
It was VERY confusing until I began learning more about my three
options (A, B, supplemental, D - or A, B, plus my old insurance - or
Medicare Advantage plus Epic), and then the choice was clear.
The last appeared to offer the advantages of the other two plus more,
and did it at a far lower cost, so I went with it and cancelled the
AARP coverage.
--DR
~~~~~
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:dg38b5ddh47li24aiq7fe94kup3uuc6utl@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:10:32 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>.......They get around 1250 dollars a month from both me and Stanford
>>>University. Medicare gets less than 100 dollars a month from my social
>>>Security check. I get the statements from both insurers, so I know what I am
>>>talking about.....I have diabetes,
>> You are paying more than double what I will pay for Medicare
>> supplemental coverage. It might be because you have diabetes, or it
>> might be because of the coverage available in your area.
These do seem quite probable causes for the higher costs - but as
I recall, my Advantage Plan asked only about kidney failure at
signup - and it was stated that they cannot otherwise refuse for
preexisting conditions. But, my memory is not what it was.......
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message news:3NCdnZsXAJOjUzLXnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> BLATANT MEDICARE FRAUD COSTS TAXPAYERS BILLIONS
> Officials say outrageous fraud schemes are "off the charts"
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22184921/
>
> Read it and weep. And remember, this is from MSNBC, the most liberal and
> Obama-friendly news organization in existence.
Disgraceful that this exists, and now that it is known, it should be
corrected by arrests and prosecutions of those involved - not by
throwing out the good general concept of Medicare, as I suspect
you would favor...;-) This situation doesn't reflect on Medicare so
much as the state of crime in South Florida.
BTW, a quote from the article is, "These people have absolutely
nothing to do with health care," said Kirk Ogrosky, a prosecutor
with the U.S. Justice Department. "They're thieves that would be
committing other types of crimes if they weren't committing
Medicare fraud." Big surprise.....
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:lo0oa5dbmpnohass580al2p5l5ev08h4cv@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:46:46 -0500, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH
> ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>>> The problem is you don't even understand what the dictionary definition
>>> means. You see terms like "command economy" and you think it means the
>>> merest hint of a whisper of government intervention in anything. It doesn't.
>>> It never has outside the paranoid minds of wilfully ignorant wingnuts.
>>The merest hint of socialism is socialism. It reminds one
>>of the famous dictum "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty".
>>That is, if you let them steal a little of your liberty,
>>they will just want more. That's the whole idea of
>>creeping socialism, and why the "merest hint" must be avoided
>>when it is socialism.
> You mean like state and municipal police and fire departments instead
> of private guards and the old system of paid-prescription
> firefighters?
And, let's see... Like the military the right-wingers love to see vast
amounts of money spent on - even when the time of need has past for
maintaining such a vast military (or would have, but for "W's" stupid
involvement in Iraq), or the "govmint" interference (with regulations...)
in business that keeps the rapacious "entrepreneurs" (robber barons
like those of the early 20th century) from trampling on workers rights
and well-being (let alone the health of the economy) in the name of
personal profit and power, or education, or court systems, or, or...
People who are afraid of a word like "socialism" and ignorantly,
thoughtlessly, and irrationally attribute evil characteristics to it amaze
me. I would have thought that we would have advanced beyond this
nonsense - certainly by now that we are in the 21st century. Alas,
sadly it appears that we have not... And, BTW, all this does remind
me of the admonition, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". We
have ever so slowly over the centuries expanded the liberties and
opportunities available to more and more of our citizenry - and it
is rather scary that some now appear willing to give up some of these
gains (or their progression) in the name of such a hollow ideology as
"anti-socialism". This could be humorous if this ignorance weren't so
potentially disastrous.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:rPudnQsdb4ElgzLXnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
["Rightist" view of history excised - but I can't help but add, "Have
you ever heard of sweat shops, union-busting, the Irish potato famine,
the savings and loan debacle here, the wholesale imprisoning or killing
of intellectuals under supposedly "leftist" despotic regimes, the HUAC
under Dies in the thirties and McCarthy in the 50's here that essentially
closed off any but "right" thought and expressions, and yes, Reagan,
the most over rated president in modern times who helped set the stage
for our current woes, and who "won the spending race" with the
USSR, whose economy crumbled before ours did from overspending
on the bloated militaries, etc...." Let us agree to disagree and ignore
each other's posts. I will obviously not succeed in "showing you the
light", and you certainly will not succeed in "showing me the dark", so
let's just quit trying...
--DR]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message news:4ab17bb8$0$1654$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Rol_Lei Nut wrote:
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> Agreed.
>>> This is the very issue I have tried to explain to many of the blind
>>> followers of Fox and the talk show right. If they are working stiffs,
>>> and march in lockstep behind the Faux pied pipers, they are doing so
>>> in opposition to their best interests, not to mention the best
>>> interests of the nation.
>> Shhh.... Speaking the truth is "communist"!!!
> While it's true that they are acting against their, their children's,
> and the country's best economic interests, for many of them it goes
> beyond economics to g-d and guns (at least what they perceive g-d to
> want and at least what they perceive as a threat against their assault
> weapons).
Yes. Mythologies over facts, beliefs over science, instincts
over reality, nostalgia over accurate history, ideology over
pragmatism - with a resulting "wish to return to simpler times"
(read, "go back to when white middle class and higher males
generally ruled the roost - and were free to make rather a bit
of a mess of it for the rest"). Ugh. Give me a respect for
knowledge and institutions and for social and environmental
responsibility any day over "the good old days" (that way,
we just may survive a bit longer, and do it in greater
comfort...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message news:PLednSJvrajT6yzXnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:4ab129bf$0$1589$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>> This morning's (Wednesday) Investor's Business Daily has a front-page
>>> headline saying:
>>> "45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting
>>> If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul.
>> IBD has as much credibility at Fox News, the New York Post, and the
>> Washington Times.
> Yes, those news organizations have all reported on the Van Jones scandal,
> which the mainstream media took great pains to avoid any mention of -- with
> the result that when Jones resigned, people who didn't follow Fox News, the
> New York Post, the Washington Times et al. didn't even know what he was
> resigning for. That's the state of the news media today.
You have GOT to be joking!!! Obviously you have been watching only
Fox news and similar, which is why you missed the more balanced reporting
on this elsewhere...
> Much the same with the latest ACORN scandal, which stunk so badly that even
> Democrats in Congress finally voted to stop funding ACORN. But you never
> even heard about it from ABC, CBS or NBC, did you?
[Additional nonsense deleted...]
What was shown on tape from a *few* ACORN locations (but where
were the reportings of the ones that threw out these imposters?) was
disgusting and stupid, but here we have once again the old absolutist
and uncritical Right approach of the non-thinking "they all must be evil",
and, "let's throw out the baby with the bathwater".
> Here, read all about it from a functional news organization and learn
> something for a change:
> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/14/dan-gainor-acorn-media-ignore/
So THIS is where you get your (false) information from, huh??? LOL,
and much more LOL! 8^)
Q. E. D., by yourself! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message news:AeGdnVUozZlj2ynXnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h90e2v$de5$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
>> news:PLednSJvrajT6yzXnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> Much the same with the latest ACORN scandal, which stunk so badly that
>>> even Democrats in Congress finally voted to stop funding ACORN. But you
>>> never even heard about it from ABC, CBS or NBC, did you?
>> [More nonsense deleted...]
>>
>> What was shown on tape from a *few* ACORN locations (but where
>> were the reportings of the ones that threw out these imposters?)
> What makes you think ANY of the ACORN offices did or would do any
> differently from the ones on tape?
See above - this has been reported by those "non-Fox" *news*
organizations you mention, but so like to denigrate...
>> was
>> disgusting and stupid, but here we have once again the old absolutist
>> and uncritical Right approach of the non-thinking "they all must be evil",
>> and, "let's throw out the baby with the bathwater".
>>> Here, read all about it from a functional news organization and learn
>>> something for a change:
>>>
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/14/dan-gainor-acorn-media-ignore/
>> So THIS is where you get your (false) information from, huh??? LOL,
> Show something in it that you can demonstrate is false. Go ahead, I'll wait.
> Take your time.
How about the title itself of the article, which is obviously not true --
"ACORN Story Grows But Mainstream Media Refuse to Cover It".
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:ZrmdnW3-rpa_fC7XnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4ab3520a$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
[...]
>> How does *any* of that explain the poor infant mortality rate in the USA?
> I have no idea. What exactly did they die of? I believe infants like grown
> people die from specific causes.
>
> In some of our cities, young unwed minority mothers have been known to have
> babies in public rest rooms and leave them there, or throw them away in
> dumpsters. These babies often die from exposure. I assume that when
> pregnant, the same sorts of young women on crack may have higher infant
> mortality rates as well. I would be VERY surprised if ordinary middle-class
> families experience "poor infant mortality rates" -- on the contrary, I
> would suppose ours to be among the best in the world.
YOW! This sure looks like an "Us versus Them" attitude of (to be charitable)
a "classist pig" - but more likely a "racist pig", unfortunately. Now we know
who you don't want your hard earned dollars spent on, don't we? We
certainly can't try to raise all of our citizens up to positions of equality in health
care, let along attempt to help them economically, or to deliver basic rights
(but that last is another issue favored by those "nasty lefties" and opposed by
the Right, to be considered another time...;-)?
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:bfi8b59alq3lr0l3fhd2vlc2vpkag5vvhr@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:13:09 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
> <secret@illumnati.net> wrote:
>>"John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:q8c8b5lpkbu7asbe9g8ojmu2p77h8plskp@4ax.com...
>>>>When citing the rather obvious facts that everyone knows but some pretend
>>>>not to see for the sake of political correctness gets one called a
>>>>"classist" or "racist," you know you've put your finger on a large part of
>>>>the problem.
>>> Stereotypes are not facts.
>>Stereotypes are nearly all fact-based. That's how they became stereotypes in
>>the first place.
> Oh dear.
>
> Care to name a few?
8^)
But - I think he already has...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message news:DKmdnSQXOPCCzCnXnZ2dnVY3goidnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:13:09 -0400, "Neil Harrington":
>>>Stereotypes are nearly all fact-based. That's how they became stereotypes
>>>in
>>>the first place.
>> Oh dear.
>>
>> Care to name a few?
> Right wingers are racist bigots with read-only minds?
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
8^)
Hey, I think you have come up with one that actually is absolutely true! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
<stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:h9161k$lne$2@news.albasani.net...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> I have no idea.
> But you're sure willing to point a finger none the less.
>> What exactly did they die of? I believe infants like grown
>> people die from specific causes.
>>
>> In some of our cities, young unwed minority mothers have been known to have
>> babies in public rest rooms and leave them there, or throw them away in
>> dumpsters. These babies often die from exposure. I assume that when
>> pregnant, the same sorts of young women on crack may have higher infant
>> mortality rates as well. I would be VERY surprised if ordinary middle-class
>> families experience "poor infant mortality rates" -- on the contrary, I
>> would suppose ours to be among the best in the world.
No statistics are noted - is this one case every other year in the US,
or an average of 10 a day in each of our major cities...? The above
also implies that minority babies are "throwaway", and not as much
loved as those of any other group. And, who hasn't heard of the
occasional "nice" young white girl from a "good" family giving birth in
a john and leaving the baby behind? I do not approve of your obvious
racial and class prejudices here, and elsewhere regarding immigrants.
> OK here is a concept maybe you can fathom.. Ever consider these people
> whose babies die are unable to get health insurance or proper care? I
> highly doubt our mortality rates are brought down from the cases you
> site, BUT both those cases still reflect a lack of health care.
>
> Stephanie
Indeed. Surprise...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:H4udnRAlJN0tcS7XnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Obama will only further facilitate illegals getting free health care,
> welfare and everything else to a greater degree. Now he's just said he wants
> to make illegal immigrants LEGAL immigrants. That would remove any remaining
> impediments to their freeloading -- illegal immigration, which in fact has
> been falling off over the last few years, would increase dramatically as
> they all try to get through the door at once to get on the free gravy train.
> Who can blame them?
I just stand in awe of you. Really. You can be so detached from reality
and thoughtfulness that you cannot separate the concepts of "illegal
immigrants" from "free loaders". Most "illegals" work hard, very hard,
and they do contribute to our country - and if offered a path to citizenship,
it would be a long and arduous one (unlikely one you would like to
undertake, I would guess), and one that would move them from the status
of "undocumented" to "documented" and therefore paying taxes on their
hard-earned small wages. Maybe more to the point is, who do you think
works in the fields (making our food cheaper), works as domestics and
low-end employees in other undesirable jobs, works in entry level food
service jobs, etc.? We should be proud of those who now brave great
difficulties and dangers to come here, live, and work at whatever jobs they
can find - and who would like nothing more than to become citizens, just
as most of our ancestors did. We have room and resources here to be
generous, but accepting immigrants is not just about generosity. We all
eventually benefit from their presence.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message news:H-KdnfC9ftkJZS_XnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h8u3na$t8v$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
>> news:M_CdnZWifcYMTCzXnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> Here's why ObamaCare isn't going anywhere:
>>>
>>> From today's (Thursday's) IBD, front page:
>> [...]
>> [Watch out for your sources' credibility...;-]
>> So, what else have they done in this rather considerable time, even
>> accepting MANY basic changes offered by the Republicans who
>> won't even vote for it anyway "after all this negotiation"? But, I agree
>> now with you that the whole thing SHOULD be thrown out - but
>> that a proper single-payer system should then be offered and voted
>> on, which is what the majority of people wanted in the first place.
> No, it is not.
It is, if you believe reputable sources, and not just right-wing
publications, "talking-heads", and Fox "news".
> "Single payer" means a 100% government-run program.
"Single-payer" means "single-payer", whether government or privately-run
using government funding (as my Medicare Advantage Plan is - but *I*
paid into Medicare as a worker, so *I* helped fund it).
> The
> people do not want that -- which is exactly why all the protests at town
> hall meetings etc.,
The shrill shills and the great know-nothing unwashed tried to (in an
*organized* way) disrupt and prevent from happening honest exchanges
of opinions, questions, answers, and information between citizens and their
representatives. This was reprehensible behavior instigated and organized
by the Right. Ever heard of "rabble-rousing"? We certainly saw how this
works this summer!
> The overwhelming majority of people are satisfied with the health care they
> have now, and just want the government to keep its hands off it.
So long as they don't actually try to collect on anything really expensive,
when "preexisting conditions", caps, and discontinued policies unexpectedly
appear. And, NOTHING in ANY bill being proposed says ANYONE is
to be forced away from their current insurance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But, the current system is killing the country economically, and it will only
get worse. The cost of our current system is in the multiple TRILLIONS
of dollars - and if we have any sense, NOW is the time to fix this. Now
is also the time to look at how other countries do health care, and how
much they spend relatively per person on it, what the results are, and what
the satisfaction rate is instead of burying our heads in the sand until the costs
further swamp us, the number of the uncovered grows greater, and service
further declines. Big surprise that all other wealthy industrialized nations
surpass us in the markers for good health care, and that they do it with
single-payer "govmint" programs. Gee.
[Your typical anti-union tirade excised...]
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:iL6dnaVL9vHHrynXnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> news:gi88b59o6qlgpjgdaoggghoqmn1jetfved@4ax.com...
>> Then let's have both the "public option" *and* the proposed co-ops,
> Just the co-ops, and only after making sure they aren't designed in such a
> way as to really be the same as the so-called public option (i.e., sneaking
> the "public option" in through the back door). This will take very careful
> scrutiny since leftists are notoriously sneaky and twisty.
A bit of advice --
A) Don't display your prejudices so blatantly, otherwise people will think
ill of you.
B) Add a ";-)" to the end when writing nonsense, pretending it was a joke
(but this may not be clear, since it can also mean that you intended it to
be sarcastic).
C) Say things that are based on reputable facts and actually make sense(!).
D) Or, ignore all the above, and let all come to the obvious conclusions...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
<stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:h915rh$lne$1@news.albasani.net...
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> The best part of that attitude, though, is how suicidal it is. The vast
>> majority of the "I don't want my tax dollars spent on them" folks are
>> exactly the ones who would be better off under single-payer health
>> insurance. Unless Mr. H. is making well over US$200,000, he should be
>> jumping for joy at the thought of affordable health care with none of the
>> abuse the US insurance industry inflicts on its customers.
> What's Sad is the republicans have convinced these people that ANYONE
> who makes over $25,000 a year, their ideals will help, that they are
> "One of the rich guys like us". When the fact is: their programs and
> ideals are aimed at the upper 5% of the population. Like you said, the
> left side of the isle does more for Neil (unless he is pulling in $500K+
> a year) than ANY republican ever thought about doing, yet he lashes out
> at the people who make his life better.
>
> Stephanie
It is the "great mythology" of the Right, as I have pointed out, that the
interests of the rich are identical to "my" interests, since, well, someday
I may also be rich...;-) Or, there was also Reagan's "give to the rich"
trickle-down approach to economics (if the rich get richer, then they
will spend more money, and we all do better - but the trouble with that
was that individuals can spend only so much, then the rest just gets
invested to make even more money for them). I would have to say that
those on the Right, as a group, are the least bright, thoughtful, critical in
their thinking, empathetic toward others, or able to look objectively
either at "the big picture" or the "long view". But they sure can holler!
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"SkinnerOne" <skinner_photo@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:u06bb5pbskicecvpps6plkfk5ob3la1pcr@4ax.com...
> And just for the record, I believe ALL politicians are liars. If not
> when they are elected at very least very soon afterwards. I do know
> that The left did some4 very serious name calling and actual
> undermining of the past president as did the right of his predacessor.
> It's become a character assassination game rather than a game of
> politics and compromise to put forth programs and laws that meet the
> needs of the greater population.
>
> I am disgusted by them all.
This is why people REALLY need to seek good educations so that
they can learn how to base their decisions on facts and on reasonable
conclusions drawn from them instead of just "glomming" onto anything
they may thoughtlessly favor casually heard from either the left or the
right - and to realize that ALL things related to politics are relative,
NOT absolute! Which is to say that there are MANY fine politicians
who care far more about the welfare of *people* (more than that of
corporations, etc. and/or their own aggrandizement) - but politics is
about balancing things to achieve the possible, which unfortunately
cannot generally be the "ideal" (and promises are therefore made that
cannot unfortunately be entirely kept - in order to get elected) - but
don't dismiss all politicians since some are disreputable, and since none
can deliver on everything related to grand intentions. BTW, I think by
any fairly impartial view, it is the Right that tends to name-call far more,
or much worse (as with lying, using a minor lie in a deposition made to
save his wife embarrassment to try to bring down a president [wasting
a year of time and much resources and drawing attention away from the
lead-up to 9-11], keeping lists of "enemies" to be attacked through the
IRS, breaking into the opposition's headquarters, listening in to private
non-terrorist communications, engaging in torture, starting a useless,
destructive, disruptive, and VERY expensive war, and on and on.......).
The current Right's "rabble-rousing" of the uneducated about the evils
of "big govmint" and "socialism" related to (but not limited to) trying to
solve the current health care issues in this country is just the latest step
in a miserable history of such despicable activities of the Right. So,
dismiss (and don't vote for) those responsible for the worst of what
you see, but don't "throw out the baby with the bath water". The right
to engage in democracy and to vote is a precious one.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:t698b59iluaqfn3dihhslpo97968p0qrn1@4ax.com...
[...]
>>Perhaps you've been living under a rock for the past two years and don't
>>know that the "left wing" controls both houses of Congress and the
>>Presidency.
> They're much too given to fair play and the spirit of compromise. The
> right wing is taking big advantage of this in their attempt to scuttle
> the whole thing.
>
> Much has been made by the right-wing media of Obama's reduced job
> approval ratings among folks who voted for him. But what they don't
> tell you is that it's because he's trying to hard to include the right
> in this process when the right wants do derail it entirely. He needs
> to apply the "extend a hand in friendship *if only* they unclench
> their fist" foreign policy to republicans. Republicans have firmly
> clenched fists, and their negotiations on the healthcare bill(s) have,
> in my opinion, rather paralleled Iran's supposed on-again/off-again
> willingness to talk about their nuclear program.
Well put. One side plays "nice" and "fair", while the other side plays
"dirty" and will not budge from a position that is economically unsustainable
by our country and that is also hard on the well-being on our citizenry - but
on with politics as usual - and the current "game" must be "won" at all costs
by those on the right! <bravo...........>
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b3431cef-cb18-4453-9b48-c65165f9c604@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> God help the U.S.
I will ignore this useless request...;-)
> CNN:
> CIT files for 5th largest U.S. bankruptcy
> Small business lender seeks court approval for a debt reorganization
> that has approval of bondholders.
If you think this is bad (and it is...), think how FAR, FAR, FAR
worse a total economic collapse would have been under a "I don't
know anything about economics" John McCain administration
and the "let's do nothing" 'Bublican'ts. And, don't forget what
knuckle-headed president and administration passed this mess on
to Obama, and how little time he has been in office - and how long
it took to recover from the Great Depression, also a great "gift"
from Republicans to the country... I will never understand why
anyone votes for these people who appear to have so little interest
in the welfare of the country and its people and so much for corporate
and wealthy individuals, so little skill in foreign affairs, and who are
too often corrupt. Maybe pushed-mythologies and skilful marketing
explain things that are otherwise illogical....
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:hcn83b$n9p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hcn657$m0c$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> : "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
> : news:b3431cef-cb18-4453-9b48-c65165f9c604@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> : > God help the U.S.
> : I will ignore this useless request...;-)
> : > CNN:
> : > CIT files for 5th largest U.S. bankruptcy
> : > Small business lender seeks court approval for a debt reorganization
> : > that has approval of bondholders.
> : If you think this is bad (and it is...), think how FAR, FAR, FAR
> : worse a total economic collapse would have been under a "I don't
> : know anything about economics" John McCain administration
> : and the "let's do nothing" 'Bublican'ts. And, don't forget what
> : knuckle-headed president and administration passed this mess on
> : to Obama, and how little time he has been in office - and how long
> : it took to recover from the Great Depression, also a great "gift"
> : from Republicans to the country... I will never understand why
> : anyone votes for these people who appear to have so little interest
> : in the welfare of the country and its people and so much for corporate
> : and wealthy individuals, so little skill in foreign affairs, and who are
> : too often corrupt. Maybe pushed-mythologies and skilful marketing
> : explain things that are otherwise illogical....
> : --DR
> Recall former Sen. Phil Graham was McCain's financial advisor. You
> know the same Phil Graham that did the dirty work for the finical industry
> in removing effective over sight of what the industry was about.
The theme song of the "Bublican'ts" has always been, "God Help
The Wealthy, And To Hell With The Poor And Middle Class!"
Or, "Me, Me, Me!" How else to explain yearly salaries in the tens
of ***MILLIONS*** (how could anyone's work be worth THAT
much?!?!), and getting incredibly valuable golden parachutes "earned"
by running companies into the ground and being forced out. And then
there is that quite literally incredible line that goes, "But if we don't pay
them those (absurdly high) sums, they will leave and go elsewhere!"
GOOD! They were the ones who got us unto trouble in the first place,
so good riddance!
SHEESH!
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Walter Banks" <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote in message news:4AABFA0C.7A417C71@bytecraft.com...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> In my world, yes, yes, yes. Everyone (all 300 million of us citizens) should
>> have a government ID card, and/or a chip implanted in us that identifies us
>> as US citizens in good standing, and if we are sick, then the chip should
>> get us the treatment we need. Today's technology is more than adequate to
>> accomplish this.
> Well put
I trust you two are joking... Talk about ultimate "socialism", ultimate
government control over its citizenry, and just plain obvious potential
for the development of ultimate nightmare despotism... THINK!!!
(Sheesh!)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"SkinnerOne" <skinner_photo@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:6gi9b59a1a73aoidbqnescousa12qfohf0@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:44:01 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>On 2009-09-18 11:21:18 -0700, "www.goyfire.com" <whitemanfight@ymail.com> said:
>>> 'Pornography': To film prostitution. Over 90% of pornographers are
>>> jewish.
>>
>>> <-------REPEATING ANY OF THIS OP IS BEYOND DECENCY----->
>>What a piece of racist crap.
>>Merely the mention of a David Duke web site tells all.
>>It seems in this current political climate the klan is very much alive
>>and kicking.
> That's what many would want you to thinik. I prefer to think that this
> political climate has brought out the keenest of American liberties.
> The right to disagree.
>
> Unfortunately, this administration and it's media allies cannot or
> will not defend their programs and agendas. It is much more expedient
> for them to simply slander their detractors to the point that the
> detractors are seen as evil.
>
> It's a very dangerous path and one we have seen used many many times
> in the past century. Never to good ends though.
This last entry would be funny (since it is so precisely the reverse of the
truth), but this is what I would accuse the likes of Fox "news", Rush
Limbaugh, and right-wing publications and blogs of doing ("rabble-rousing"
with half-truths, deceptions, and out-right lies). These are not good times
for civility and truthfulness, almost entirely the fault of those on the Right.
The post above does begin in its second half to approach the truth about
effects, though, but from the wrong side of what is correct...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message news:qY6dnf_jS-4jYCvXnZ2dnVY3gomdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Bill Graham <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> I would eliminate capitol gains taxes permanently.
>> And replace it with straight income tax. Change that 15% tax rate for
>> capital gains to 35% for straight income tax.
> Seconded.
> --
> David J. Littleboy
This is the most regressive kind of tax possible. Think about it.
For a tax rate of 1/3rd of income, someone with an income of --
$10,000 pays $3,333 tax just TRY to live on the remains!)
$30,000 pays $10,000 tax (now we are entering "scraping the
bottom" territory...)
$100,000 pays $33,333 tax (and *maybe* at this point we can
keep our financial head above water...)
$300,000 pays $100,000 (and with reasonably prudent spending,
living well is relatively easy)
$1,000,000 pays $333,333 tax (a lot, but there is PLENTY left
over to live quite well)
$3,000,000 pays $1,000,000 tax (a HECK of a lot, but there
is one HECK of a lot left over!)
$10,000,000 pays $3,333,333 tax (oh, dear, I'm so sorry for
what hardships that this puts this taxpayer through......;-)
The point is that without some graduation of the tax, especially
toward the low end, those there get "killed" financially by taxes.
I know, since I've been there, paying $2,000 income taxes on a
$10,000 income (before a reshuffling of the progressive tax
schedule was made), and 'tain't no fun! A truly "flat" tax is the
worst possible solution. Of course it could easily be modified
by introducing progressively larger exemptions as the income
amount goes down...;-) And then, adding in capital gains as
straight income does make sense - why should one kind of
income be taxed at a different rate from others (hmmm, maybe
'cuz lower taxes on the profits on investments encourage those
with the resources to invest in relatively-risky-but-useful
enterprises to go ahead and invest?)?
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message news:cYSdncr3AogmcirXnZ2dnVY3go6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> Bill Graham <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> I would eliminate capitol gains taxes permanently.
>>>> And replace it with straight income tax. Change that 15% tax rate for
>>>> capital gains to 35% for straight income tax.
>>> Seconded. --
>>> David J. Littleboy
>> This is the most regressive kind of tax possible. Think about it.
> One of us misunderstands. My understanding here is that Ray assumes that the
> tax rates are progressive, but that the folks are complaining about capital
> gains tax are already in the top bracket.
I may not have "plowed" far enough back up into this branch of
this river...;-)
> <Perfectly valid rant about the evils of flat rate taxes ruthlessly
> snipped.>
> --
> David J. Littleboy
8^)
As a very low income person, who also managed with lucky
investments to make money on the stock market and elsewhere,
I'm still (as with health care) willing to pay more than I do now
to better equalize the systems so they work better for all...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message news:4ab8dd40$0$1645$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> A friend has a Humana Advantage Plan in Florida, pays $0/month for
>> it, just had one of those noo-fangled prostate removals using two small
>> holes and giant 3D imaging of what is going on inside (this appears to
>> be superior to any other technique for removing the prostate without
>> negative after effects). It was covered (with reasonable copays) as
>> were the follow-up therapy sessions. Every one else I've talked to
>> from here and from Florida has been happy to have this plan - but as
>> with everything, there can be exceptions... And, heck, my plan even
>> offers free yearly colonoscopies and free memberships in health clubs
>> and help covering dieting programs (I think they see the advantages
>> to their bottom line of preventing ailments rather than treating them after
>> they develop...;-).
> Just don't get any disease that requires expensive drugs like Revlimid.
Humana covers my $800+/month drug now. So long as a drug is on
their list of covered drugs, they pay. But this does bring up good
points - that it is less likely that a VERY expensive, fairly rare drug will
be covered in the formularies of these still-private Medicare Advantage
companies - and there can also be another problem, which is that a
drug covered one month may suddenly no longer be covered, and the
allowable enrollment periods may trap some without coverage for their
drug. These are more reasons for having a "Public Option", or better
yet, blanket "Single-Payer" systems like Medicare and those of other
countries that simply supply better and cheaper medical coverage...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~