http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Opposition to Obama's destruction of the health care sector is not about
race - 17 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/28531844efc1bbfe?hl=en
* There is no "right" to health care - 4 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e14cb160c2e4a0dd?hl=en
* How to get rid of a roommate? - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a3fd1dedade4e5a6?hl=en
* I remember back when... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/32a108e42a16b497?hl=en
* less wear on car, save gas, drive 55 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a0667e7a8ca75811?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Opposition to Obama's destruction of the health care sector is not
about race
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/28531844efc1bbfe?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 7:03 pm
From: Wilson Woods
It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
it's about race know they've lost the debate.
== 2 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 7:34 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Oct 12, 9:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
it race and stupidity, which ever comes first.
== 3 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 7:40 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Nickname is fuckwit, a looter, wrote:
> On Oct 12, 9:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
>> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
>> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>
> it race and
It's not race.
== 4 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 7:46 pm
From: "friesian@zoocrewphoto.com"
On Oct 12, 7:34 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 9:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
> > access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
> > it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>
> it race and stupidity, which ever comes first.
I have good insurance right now. I have to work a minium 15 hours per
week and pay $7 a week out of my paycheck. That allows me to work work
part time at a regular job and work full time on my small business and
still have good health insurance.
If the new health care plan passes with a government subsidized plan,
the insurance companies will either raise rates or go out of business.
In addition, my employee will find that it is cheaper to pay the
penalty than to offer insurance. So, they could simply drop my
insurance next may when the contract expires. I could go from paying
$28 a month to $400 a month and still end up with worse insurance than
my current plan. But if I don't pay it, I could then be forced to pay
more than a thousand dollars in fines for not having insurance.
I'm sorry, but this is not a good plan, the way it is currently
written. We do need improvements, but creating a huge pyramid scheme
isn't the way to go about it. We already have one with medicare and
social security, and we have seen that it only works when there are a
bunch of people paying in that don't need anything paid out. That is
why they want to force everybody to pay for insurance even if they
don't want it. And while they say the government won't force us to use
their plan, it will be teh only plan available if we get dropped by
our employer or the insurance companies go out of business. So, no, I
don't want this plan.
I didn't want the bailouts either, and that includes the one from
Bush. It was stupid then. And it's stupid now.
We can't spend our way out of debt.
== 5 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 7:46 pm
From: larrylaundry
Wilson Woods wrote:
> Nickname is fuckwit, a looter, wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 9:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
> >> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
> >> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
> >
> > it race and
>
> It's not race.
It's about the Republican party sitting back while the average idiot
Republican does their dirty work for them, while the average idiot
thinks they are saving the day by acting like a bunch of complete
idiots.
Race, that just comes with the territory of the anti-Democratic
Republican minds.
== 6 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 7:47 pm
From: Geopinion
On Oct 12, 7:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
I agree, it's not about race. It's about insurance companies' fear
that they'll be cut off from their 30% cut of each U.S. health care
dollar.
Now insurance companies are threatening to raise rates if health care
reform occurs. We should fuck the insurance companies before they fuck
us. Pass a single-payer insurance plan, or a strong public option
plan, and drive those bastards out of the health care business. I'd
rather pay a little more in taxes to have a government agency with a
mandate to provide health care benefits than pay another dime to the
CEOs and lobbyists of the insurance companies, whose books and methods
are not open to the public. At least with a government option, we
have some way to effect changes and improvements through our elected
representatives; and the books would be open to government auditors
and the public.
We don't owe insurance companies a living.
MLW
== 7 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 7:51 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Geopinion wrote:
> On Oct 12, 7:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
>> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
>> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>
> I agree, it's not about race. It's about insurance companies' fear
> that they'll be cut off from their 30% cut of each U.S. health care
> dollar.
It's about citizens' legitimate fear that they're going to have worse
health care, and worse access to what health care they get, after Obama
fucks up the health care system.
== 8 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:00 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Oct 12, 9:40 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nickname is fuckwit, a looter, wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 9:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
> >> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
> >> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>
> > it race and
>
> It's not race.
then you admit its stupidity:)
== 9 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:02 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Oct 12, 9:40 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Nickname is fuckwit, a looter, wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 12, 9:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
>>>> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
>>>> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>>> it race and
>> It's not race.
>
> then you admit its stupidity
It's about citizens' legitimate fear that they're going to have worse
health care, and worse access to what health care they get, after Obama
fucks up the health care system.
== 10 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:08 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Oct 12, 10:02 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 9:40 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Nickname is fuckwit, a looter, wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 12, 9:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
> >>>> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
> >>>> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
> >>> it race and
> >> It's not race.
>
> > then you admit its stupidity
>
> It's about citizens' legitimate fear that they're going to have worse
> health care, and worse access to what health care they get, after Obama
> fucks up the health care system.
no, you admitted is was about stupidity. i will take your word for it
this time:)
== 11 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:08 pm
From: Geopinion
On Oct 12, 7:51 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Geopinion wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 7:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
> >> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
> >> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>
> > I agree, it's not about race. It's about insurance companies' fear
> > that they'll be cut off from their 30% cut of each U.S. health care
> > dollar.
>
> It's about citizens' legitimate fear that they're going to have worse
> health care, and worse access to what health care they get, after Obama
> fucks up the health care system.
You think handing the insurance companies 30 cents out of each health
care dollar is a good system? They don't provide an ounce of health
care and are in charge of every decision that is made about your
health care. A government-run system wouldn't be trying to maximize
profits to pay their CEOs, shareholders and lobbyists - and the bean
counters who do nothing but think of ways to deny coverage.
MLW
== 12 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:11 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Nickname is fuckwit, a looter, wrote:
> On Oct 12, 10:02 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 9:40 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Nickname is fuckwit, a looter, wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 12, 9:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
>>>>>> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
>>>>>> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>>>>> it race and
>>>> It's not race.
>>> then you admit its stupidity
>> It's about citizens' legitimate fear that they're going to have worse
>> health care, and worse access to what health care they get, after Obama
>> fucks up the health care system.
>
> no, you admitted
It's about citizens' legitimate fear that they're going to have worse
health care, and worse access to what health care they get, after Obama
fucks up the health care system.
== 13 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:12 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Geopinion wrote:
> On Oct 12, 7:51 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Geopinion wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 7:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
>>>> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
>>>> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>>> I agree, it's not about race. It's about insurance companies' fear
>>> that they'll be cut off from their 30% cut of each U.S. health care
>>> dollar.
>> It's about citizens' legitimate fear that they're going to have worse
>> health care, and worse access to what health care they get, after Obama
>> fucks up the health care system.
>
> You think handing the insurance companies 30 cents out of each health
> care dollar is a good system?
I think lengthening the wait times /most/ people face is a shitty reform.
== 14 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:28 pm
From: The Real Bev
Wilson Woods wrote:
> It's about citizens' legitimate fear that they're going to have worse
> health care, and worse access to what health care they get, after Obama
> fucks up the health care system.
I agree with everything you say, but I really wish you'd eliminate
misc.consumers.frugal-living from your newsgroup list. You might like arguing
among yourselves, but (as shown by the list of participants in your threads)
none of us is interested in the continued wrangle no matter how important the
subject is.
--
Thanks, Bev
==============================================================
"Arguing on the internet is like running a race in the Special
Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded."
== 15 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:29 pm
From: Tim Crowley
On Oct 12, 7:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
BUahahahahahahaha.
hint: you're insane.
== 16 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:30 pm
From: Tim Crowley
On Oct 12, 7:34 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 9:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
> > access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
> > it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>
> it race and stupidity, which ever comes first.
the OP is insane. For her and most racists the stupidity comes first.
But make no mistake about it. All the OP about is hate. Hate and
ignorance. She's a sad, sad case.
== 17 of 17 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:32 pm
From: Tim Crowley
On Oct 12, 8:28 pm, The Real Bev <bashley...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wilson Woods wrote:
> > It's about citizens' legitimate fear that they're going to have worse
> > health care, and worse access to what health care they get, after Obama
> > fucks up the health care system.
>
> I agree with everything you say, but I really wish you'd eliminate
> misc.consumers.frugal-living from your newsgroup list. Y
She is insane. She spams usenet with hate cause she needs the
attention. WEventually she looses her internet access and then comes
back with new service and a new collection of aliases.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: There is no "right" to health care
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e14cb160c2e4a0dd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 7:08 pm
From: JohnDoe@BadISP.org
Geopinion <walkmar@easystreet.net> wrote:
>On Oct 11, 6:55 pm, John...@BadISP.org wrote:
>> Geopinion<walk...@easystreet.net> wrote:
>> >No one knows which physicians or hospitals provide the best care for
>> >the least cost. That information is not available anywhere, so the
>> >free market provides no choices for the health-care consumer.
>> Someone does know, or at least can find out. However, the physicians
>> and hospitals don't want this to happen so they pressure and are
>> largely successful in preventing governments from collecting and
>> disseminating the information. As with all these areas there is some
>> truth to the (usual) accusation of the weakness of the information,
>> and as usual the concept that we can't achieve perfection is used to
>> avoid any action whatsoever.
>OK, let's say you've done your homework and have somehow managed to
>find enough information about physicians/hospital who are the best and
>most affordable local options for the conditions you are most likely
>to face: heart disease, cancer, Alzheimers, diabetes; but then you
>develop a rare nerve disease and must start all over. Weakness of the
>information is critical and unless/until sufficient information is
>available to all patients, and unless/until all patients are
>sufficiently educated to evaluate the information, the free-market has
>failed at the critical first step: finding the best, most affordable
>care.
Why does the market need to find the best, most affordable care
(implied: - at all times and in all instances)? The answer is that the
market is messy and if you set a super-high perfection standard of
course it will fail.
Compare with supermarkets. In my area the "snob" supermarket (sells
caviar, various types of smoked salmon cut off the fish while you
wait, Kobe beef, lots of imported foods) is often cheaper than the
cheapo (dirty floor, crowded aisles, surly underpaid employees) for
staples such as paper towels, sugar and cans of tomatoes but you
wouldn't think so unless you studiously examine the flyers and also
look for the manager's specials. Since most people refuse to do their
homework (except in a general sense) they often overpay for these
things. Does this mean there's no competition among supermarkets? Or
that the competition isn't working? No in both cases. They're not
reducing the prices of items because of altruism. The snob market
wants to attract and keep the shopper. The cheapo is resting on its
reputation and eventually as more people find out about the snob
prices they'll lose enough business to hurt.
People who don't do their homework in the health care area (if they
were able to get the information) will get poorer service and pay more
for it. Too bad. More importantly, the vast majority who do
investigate will get better service at a cheaper price.
>> >No one can afford to take the time and perform the research needed to
>> >determine where to get the most effective treatment for the least cost
>> >in the shadow of a potentially life-threatening illness. So the free
>> >market has no answers in that situation.
>> That's exactly when you want to do your homework and when the
>> government should be working to make the suppliers cough up the
>> relevant information. But maybe you mean "in an emergency situation"
>> instead of "in the shadow of a life-threatening illness." In that
>> case, true, you can't spend the time to find out which is the best
>> hospital to stabilize you. This is where we need trauma insurance, or
>> perhaps there's a place for 100% government control and operation,
>> much like the fire brigade.
>Again, the needed information is not currently available, nor is it
>likely to become available. Expecting lay people to become
>sufficiently well informed about something that took physicians years
>and years of medical training to understand, is another failure of the
>free-market with regard to health care.
Oh, nonsense. Most medical care can be easily done by simply reading a
textbook on the area that ails you. Most MD's are out of date the
minute they walk out of medical school or even earlier. Take a look at
the serious publications in medicine; no human could keep up in all
but the most narrow specialty and that's nowhere near the level at
which most MD's function. Medicine is just cookbook: read the text and
take the drug! Surgery and nursing care are another matter but even
there sub-sub specialization is necessary to be even close to an
expert and there's no need for "years and years" of training.
For example you don't need to know anything about orthopedics or
cardiology to perform a Trans Urethral Radical Prostatectomy (standard
surgery for BPH). In fact if you did a TURP and were trained to do so
back in your "years and years" you'd be out of date. While TURP's are
still done for very big prostates, PVP (greenlight laser) is the
method of choice for most today. Whoops! That's just gone out of date.
Robot-controlled PVP is the latest and the greatest. Your poor old
"years and years" of training urologist is obsolete at least for this
function.
> And how does one weight
>quality vs. cost? Should I chose the second or third cheapest
>provider of that's the best? or does cost outweigh everything else?
That's your decision which the government won't let you make because
you might make a mistake (or reduce the incomes of the pros). Read
about the automotive engineer in my previous post.
>> >Rural areas and small towns may have only one source for health care,
>> >so there are no choices to be made among competing providers because
>> >there are no competing providers. The free market offers no solutions
>> >there.
>> Oh, come on. Under all systems the rural ill are going to be at a
>> significant disadvantage. If they want the choice they have to move to
>> a big city. In practice, just as in other sectors of the economy,
>> competition comes via mail order, the internet, and travel to the
>> appropriate competing supplier. We even have people going to India,
>> Thailand, and Mexico (and probably other countries) for lower cost
>> health care. There's the competition.
>The absence of rural/small-town medical services means the free-market
>has not been successful outside large metropolitan areas. And
>suggesting that all Americans move to cities large enough to have
>multiple providers is kind of ludicrous.
Yikes! You really want to have a top-notch cardiologist in every hick
town? A fertility expert? Name your expert! The rural people aren't
going to get the care under any system (market, central-directed,
dream up another). And they do move (temporarily) to cities (or other
cities) for the care. This whole idea of "pity the rural person" is
ridiculous. If you live in the back blocks of Idaho should you expect
a Broadway theater down the street?
And how the absence of rural medical services shows that the market
doesn't work is beyond me. I don't think there's an absence of medical
services but if there is that's what the demand calls for: none.
>> >The same limits exist with regard to insurers; most people have no
>> >choice but must use the insurer - and the participating physicians/
>> >hospitals - their employer selects. Those without employer-provided
>> >health care likewise have very limited choices and usually must simply
>> >obtain coverage they can afford. So, the free market hasn't performed
>> >for those people, either.
>> And that's because the free market hasn't been allowed/forced to
>> function. Several years ago I attempted to compare the reimbursement
>> levels between the (supposedly) competing plans my employer offered.
>> Big problem: the DRG's (Diagnostic Related Groups) are not the same
>> between plans and the actual coding is copyright (even Medicare's) so
>> you can't get a list of the DRG's (without paying megabucks for them)
>> and even if you do you can't compare them nor can anyone else and
>> publish the comparison. Obviously this is to prevent competition
>> something the free marketeers should have outlawed long ago. But they
>> don't / didn't. Further most insurance companies won't even talk to
>> you (the insured or potential insured). They make it as hard as
>> possible to find out what you're actually getting for your money. This
>> is like the restaurant telling you it won't tell you the price of your
>> food until after you've consumed it.
>And insurance companies wouldn't pay out a dime if they didn't have
>to. That's why "insurance" is ill-fitted to health care.
That's not the only reason "insurance" is ill-fitted to health care.
> Health
>problems are a given; most individuals WILL become ill at some point
>in their life.
But in most cases the individual, if empowered, can afford to deal
with the problems himself. It's the catastrophe (accident, heart
attack, etc) and the end-of-life care that he needs financial help
with.
> Insurance is for "in case of," rare, unforeseen
>losses. Insurance companies never consider themselves to be involved
>in their clients' lives from cradle-to-grave. Their risks are usually
>limited by term of employment or membership in a covered
>organization. Insurance companies Number One task is to limit payouts
>and maximize shareholder/CEO/lobbyist profits. Insurance companies do
>not provide health care.
Correct and that's why the current brouhaha is not about "reforming
health care" but about changing the distribution of health care costs
using, in my view, a silly, restrictive, regressive
guaranteed-to-bust-the-budget, method. At one stage during his
campaign Obama said that the problem is not with insurance but with
the cost of health care. He was right but he seems to have completely
forgotten about this statement. Or... maybe I mis-heard <g>.
According to one source (I agree that this is vague which is the
problem with all statistics in this area) the average income of the US
MD is $200,000 and there are around 900,000 MD's in the US. Counting
up the zeros that means that the MD's cost us $180,000,000,000 each
year. According to the comparative studies from WHO non-US (France UK
and Japan specifically mentioned) MD's are paid 60% of the US salaries
meaning that if we paid our MD's the same as the underpaid French
(yeah, right) we'd save $72 billion right there. Never mind
disemploying large numbers who just write prescriptions.
Just how much do those much-vilified insurance company executives get
paid? A lot less than $72 billion, I'd guess. And let's not forget
that the majority of workers in the insurance companies are lowly-paid
grunts.
Now I don't know how much MD's should be paid and I think a system
which imposed a salary cap/ price control except in very minor areas
would be a disaster but we'll never find out the right number -- the
right income -- until we let the market work its magic. Let the
consumer decide at the point of sale (how much is it worth to see the
PCP tomorrow?) for each individual transaction and cumulatively we'll
find out.
For those afraid of the market, read the Atlantic Monthly article
where the guy suggests comparison with Lasik and cosmetic surgery
where insurance rarely is applicable. The system is highly responsive
to the consumer at what seems to be a much lower price. Of course
you're not going to find Lasik surgery at Fort Apache <g>.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 7:29 pm
From: Marsha
JohnDoe@BadISP.org wrote:
> According to one source (I agree that this is vague which is the
> problem with all statistics in this area) the average income of the US
> MD is $200,000 and there are around 900,000 MD's in the US. Counting
> up the zeros that means that the MD's cost us $180,000,000,000 each
> year. According to the comparative studies from WHO non-US (France UK
> and Japan specifically mentioned) MD's are paid 60% of the US salaries
> meaning that if we paid our MD's the same as the underpaid French...
>snipping the rest of the bullshit>
You are just plain fucking nuts. Class envy - ever heard of it? That's
what's bringing this country down. You are not entitled to what a
doctor makes unless you do a doctor's job. You want 200,000 a year in
this country? Then get a damn MD degree. You are just as free as
everyone else to make the most of your life and if you don't have the
inclination, then leave those who do alone. You want a fucking
socialist society, then move to France or any other pansy ass country
and quitcherbitchen. Goddamn fucking liberal piece of shit.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:11 pm
From: JohnDoe@BadISP.org
Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:
>JohnDoe@BadISP.org wrote:
> > Food stamps exist to benefit agribusiness, not provide luxury for the
>> recipient. However we do have a program you'd like: WIC. What you
>> wouldn't like is to be behind someone paying with WIC checks.
>> Everything has to be sorted out and paid for specifically such as a
>> check just for one gallon of milk.
>Food stamps (Ohio Directional Cards as they are called, a feel-good
>name)
Maybe in your state. Most of us know them as "Food Stamps" see:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/rules/Legislation/about.htm
(that "fsp" in the URL stands for "Food Stamp(s) Program")
>are used to buy what a lot of people who can't afford it themselves
>would consider luxury food. If tax dollars are being used to buy
>someone food, there should be stricter guidelines on what they can buy.
Your opinion. Nothing to do with health care.
<snip>
>Well, if I had my way, a lifetime welfare mother shouldn't be allowed to
>have kids. The mothers would have their tubes tied and the daddies, if
>you can find them, would be snipped, but alas it's just a dream.
>Extreme? Yeah, I suppose.
Same again.
>>>> And how do you judge whether someone's heart attack is directly a
>>>> result of, say, smoking or drinking, and not other things like stress
>>>> or genetics. Sure, there's a correlation between things like smoking
>>>> and heart disease, but no one can determine whether any particular
>>>> instance of heart disease is a direct consequence of an individual's
>>>> smoking/drinking habits. Many people smoke and drink heavily and live
>>>> to ripe old ages without experiencing any serious medical
>>>> consequences. Many people who don't have any discernible bad habits
>>>> have heart attacks or develop other diseases but may not be entirely
>>>> blameless because they work in high-stress or high-toxin-exposure jobs
>>>> or are extremeType A personalities, or maybe they live in areas with
>>>> high levels of air or water pollution or are downwind from historical
>>>> nuclear blasts; and those are situations that are within their power
>>>> to correct. Shall we blame them for their illnesses, too?
>As I said before, you obviously have no knowledge of the health care
>field.
You didn't at least not to me. Maybe you should look to your
attributions.
<snip>
>>> What about those who are non-compliant with
>>> doctor's orders?
>> Doubtless you consider "doctor's orders" as an edict from god. I
>> suggest you read some of the Cochrane reports as to how reliable
>> "doctor's orders" are.
>Again, you obviously have zero knowledge of health care. If a cardiac
>stent is put in after a heart attack, you damn well better take the
>Plavix or we'll be seeing you in about 2 days, with another heart
>attack, guaranteed. If you don't have the money, there are programs to
>get you the meds. You also better stop smoking, including marijuana,
>and quit taking drugs. Are you really as stupid as you're sounding?
OK, you're so smart. Let's see a study. Abstract from Medline will be
enough at least for now. It better say something like: "We took 1000
people who had recently installed stents and who didn't take Plavix
and they all had another infarction within two days of their surgery."
>>> A patient who comes back in with a heart attack, after
>>> having a stent, because he "couldn't afford the medication"?
>> So, maybe he's telling the truth?
>Reading comprehension 101 - I didn't say he wasn't telling the truth. I
>was alluding to the supposedly poor person who couldn't afford the meds,
>but manages to smoke two packs a day and get his daily allotment of
>alcohol. Happens a lot.
Maybe logic is your problem. If he's spent all his money on smokes and
alcohol he can't afford his meds can he?
>> I think you're just another "we only help the deserving poor"
>> right-winger with slightly different criteria for deciding
>> "deserving".
>And you're just a bleeding heart liberal who wants to help everyone out
>of their self-made messes, except you want to do it with my money. If
>you feel so sorry for these idiots, then you help them. I won't stop you.
I doubt most of the people here think I'm a bleeding heart liberal
given my support for the market <g>.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:15 pm
From: JohnDoe@BadISP.org
"friesian@zoocrewphoto.com" <friesian@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
>On Oct 12, 4:15 pm, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote:
>> Food stamps (Ohio Directional Cards as they are called, a feel-good
>> name)are used to buy what a lot of people who can't afford it themselves
>> would consider luxury food. If tax dollars are being used to buy
>> someone food, there should be stricter guidelines on what they can buy.
>Very true. Here in Washington state, food stamps may be used to
>purchase pop, candy, deli party trays, bakery cakes (including large
>special order cakes), lobster, jumbo prawns, expensive steak, etc.
<snipped various anecdotes>
Ronald Reagan is alive and well and fantasizing in [wherever
"friesian" lives]! (Those of sufficient age will remember what this
refers to.)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to get rid of a roommate?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a3fd1dedade4e5a6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 7:07 pm
From: « Jeem »
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:36:29 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> He did not pay any rent to her nor did he pay his part of the living
>> expenses from what I have read. It was through her generosity that
>> he lived there rent free because she was romantically involved with him.
>
>He did however do some stuff that 'Marsha' claims he has undone now.
>
>> He lived there rent free which is a privilege, not a right.
>
>No one said anything about rights.
>
>> I do not see how he can have any rights except for the
>> aforementioned right to retain his personal possessions.
>
>He does anyway in quite a few US jurisdictions.
>
>> Perhaps you can elaborate on what other rights the BF may have?
>
>Read up on palimony sometime.
Palimony laws vary state to state.
>
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 7:12 pm
From: « Jeem »
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:14:54 -0400, Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:
>My milktoast sister does plan on consulting an attorney finally, but
>does anyone know what she has to do to get rid of a roommate
>(boyfriend)? She owns the home outright. He's a verbal abuser and
>plays mind games, like hiding her jewelry and undoing a couple small
>improvements he's made to her home. She owns the home outright. He has
>never paid anywhere near an equal share of the bills. I'm thinking she
>may have to formally give him 30 days notice and then just evict him,
>probably with the help of some law enforcement.
>
>Marsha
You know, Marsha, I think a very effective way of your sister getting
her BF out of the house is to cheat on him. I mean have a short-term
affair and don't even try to hide it. Let herself get caught, like
letting him "accidentally" see a love letter in her email or witness
her kissing holding hands with another guy. If her infidelity will not
get him out of the house, I do not know what would.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I remember back when...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/32a108e42a16b497?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 7:26 pm
From: The Real Bev
This was a good group. Looks like the recent spate of political crap has even
discouraged Rod from posting.
It's a fucking shame that people are as stupid as they are.
--
Cheers, Bev
*************************************************
Never argue with a woman holding a torque wrench.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: less wear on car, save gas, drive 55
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a0667e7a8ca75811?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:22 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In <a28aac4e-b256-4be3-a694-01d1ba159775@l9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, bob
syr wrote:
>On Oct 10, 6:45 pm, Mrs Irish Mike <wilma6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You are spot on. I drive cars for years and love to see 200K and more
>> on the odometer. One of the things I do is drive 55. The easiest thing
>> to do is to get behind a large truck that is going about the right
>> speed. Trucks take longer to brake, so I reduce my chance of a rear
>> end collision. Also the trucks tend to cut through the wind resistance
>> and pull you along, further reducing the wear on your car. With the
>> truck in front, most drivers will not want to get between you and the
>> truck.
>
>I've heard about that but never tried it. Don't you have to be pretty
>close to the truck to be in the wake?
<I SNIP from here>
My experiece is that the wake behind larger trucks is somewhat
significant even about 1.5 seconds behind the truck, about 130 feet at
60 MPH.
It is good to be behind a large truck by far enough to react to the
truck having an emergency such as a tire exploding or a retreaded tire
losing its tread, so that you can get around the bigger pieces of
shrapnel.
In addition, it is not good to draft trucks that have exposed piles of
gravel or worse loads that they may inadvertently unload if they hit a
pothole. I have known (from experience) dump trucks carrying gravel to
lose a bit of the gravel as they go along, with some of the gravel dinging
windshields of cars nearby behind.
Also, I would not draft trucks having rear closure like that of most
U-Haul ones and lacking a padlock or other means to keep the closure from
opening. I once rode a U-Haul truck without a padlock, and at the
destination the rear was open - with the load fortunately still in the
truck.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment