Observation

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Witless is so angry today that he's drooling on his front paws. His people
should toss him in the pool for his own good.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:


> I'll even agree to support Obama's end of life counseling for you.
>
> ScottW

You don't believe that such counseling, as defined under HR 3200, isn't
a good option?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 2, 3:36*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> I'll even agree to support Obama's end of life counseling for you.
>
> >> ScottW
>
> > You don't believe that such counseling, as defined under HR 3200, isn't
> > a good option?
>
> Are you always so negative?

LoL. 2pid commenting on grammar is always funny. LoL.

> Anyway, no I don't. *Last person I will trust with my health care or end of life
> options is a gov't dweeb following congressional mandates.

Ah, it's just another problem with definitions...again.

Life for 2pid would be so much easier if it didn't contain words. LoL.

> Welcome to the life of gov't mandated pain thresholds.

I disagree.

Pluto should be a planet.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ..
> .
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I'll even agree to support Obama's end of life counseling for you.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > You don't believe that such counseling, as defined under HR 3200, isn't
> > a good option?
>
> Are you always so negative?

lol How am I being megative?

>
> Anyway, no I don't. Last person I will trust with my health care or end of
> life
> options is a gov't dweeb following congressional mandates.

Hmmm. Seems to me a person knowing her/his legal options is a good
thing. AARP agrees.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 2, 3:55*pm, Jenn > wrote:

> *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ..
> > .
> > > In article >,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > >> I'll even agree to support Obama's end of life counseling for you.

Hm. Forced sterilizations and wishing death on others.

I'll just bet 2pid considers himself a "right-to-lifer". LoL.

> > >> ScottW
>
> > > You don't believe that such counseling, as defined under HR 3200, isn't
> > > a good option?
>
> > Are you always so negative?
>
> lol *How am I being megative?

No doubt double-negatives are another thing that makes 2pid really,
REALLY mad!

> > Anyway, no I don't. *Last person I will trust with my health care or end of
> > life
> > options is a gov't dweeb following congressional mandates.
>
> Hmmm. *Seems to me a person knowing her/his legal options is a good
> thing. *AARP agrees.

2pid wouldn't "trust" that to a "gov't dweeb".

He'd rather pay a high-priced consultant.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 2, 5:07*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 2, 3:55*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > Anyway, no I don't. *Last person I will trust with my health care or
> > > end of life options is a gov't dweeb following congressional mandates..
>
> > Hmmm. *Seems to me a person knowing her/his legal options is a good
> > thing. *AARP agrees.

Rmeber that ScottW accused me of "cheating" because I
consulted an immigration attorney both when I got my H1B
visa and when I subsequently became a citizen. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Aug 2, 5:07*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 3:55*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > Anyway, no I don't. *Last person I will trust with my health care or
> > > > end of life options is a gov't dweeb following congressional mandates.
> >
> > > Hmmm. *Seems to me a person knowing her/his legal options is a good
> > > thing. *AARP agrees.
>
> Rmeber that ScottW accused me of "cheating" because I
> consulted an immigration attorney both when I got my H1B
> visa and when I subsequently became a citizen. :-)

lol Yeah, I recall that.

Good to read you, John. I've been meaning to be in touch since Gordon's
passing. My condolences to you and the others at Stereophile who know
him.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Witless gets caught in a trap and tries to chew his paw off.

> > Rmeber that ScottW accused me of "cheating" because I
> > consulted an immigration attorney both when I got my H1B
> > visa and when I subsequently became a citizen. :-)


[i]
> Atkinson's only accomplishment is proof our H1B and citizenship standards are
> too low.

And yet, the standards have been getting tougher every decade since the '70s.
Back in the 19th century, when your foredogs slunk into America, there were no
standards. We even let in creatures with communicable diseases.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ..
> .
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> g..
> >> .
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> I'll even agree to support Obama's end of life counseling for you.
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > You don't believe that such counseling, as defined under HR 3200, isn't
> >> > a good option?
> >>
> >> Are you always so negative?
> >
> > lol How am I being megative?
>
> That would be negative, twice as much as required.

Oh, I see! You wish to start a grammar war. How "fun"! Be ready for
the incoming.

>
> >
> >>
> >> Anyway, no I don't.

(The)

> >> Last person I will trust with my health care or end
> >> of
> >> life
> >> options is a gov't dweeb following congressional mandates.
> >
> > Hmmm. Seems to me a person knowing her/his legal options is a good
> > thing. AARP agrees.
>
> Legal options are now part of the counseling? LoL.
> Why don't I find that in the bill?

I don't know. Perhaps you have not read it. Perhaps you have trouble
understanding it. Those seem to be the most obvious possibilities.

"(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning,
including key questions and considerations, important steps, and
suggested people to talk to.

Œ(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including
living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

Œ(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities
of a health care proxy.

Œ(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and
State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with
advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the
advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service
organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of
1965).

Œ(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life
services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,
and benefits for such services and supports that are available under
this title.

Œ(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life
sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--

Œ(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is
beneficial to the individual and the individual¹s family and the reasons
why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the
individual changes;

Œ(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to
make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and

Œ(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to
determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides
so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if
the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including
requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker
(also known as a health care proxy).

Œ(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations
under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--

Œ(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling
orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical
orders respected across all care settings; and

Œ(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining
treatment described in clause (iii).

Œ(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a
States described in this clause is a program that--

Œ(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely
identifiable throughout the State;

Œ(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and
other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the
professional¹s authority under State law) may sign orders for life
sustaining treatment;

Œ(III) provides training for health care professionals across the
continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining
treatment; and

Œ(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives
from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or
nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association,
state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state
department of health, state hospital association, home health
association, state bar association, and state hospice association.

Œ(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is--

Œ(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and

Œ(B) a nurse practitioner or physician¹s assistant who has the authority
under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments."

So why are you against a patient knowing he/she can grant a durable
power of attorney? Or that a patient can have a medical proxy? Or that
the patient has the right to direct care in advance should she/he be
unable to do so in the future? Or the knowledge that such orders will
be available to caregivers throughout the states? Why are you against
patients knowing such things?

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> Last person I will trust with my health care or end of life
> options is a gov't dweeb following congressional mandates.

Without a living will, you're at the mercy of your doctor and health
care institution.

UK example snipped, as no one is proposing a UK-style system for the US.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 2, 4:13*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ..
> >> .
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> >> I'll even agree to support Obama's end of life counseling for you.
>
> >> >> ScottW
>
> >> > You don't believe that such counseling, as defined under HR 3200, isn't
> >> > a good option?
>
> >> Are you always so negative?
>
> > lol *How am I being megative?
>
> *That would be negative, twice as much as required.
>
>
>
> >> Anyway, no I don't. *Last person I will trust with my health care or end of
> >> life
> >> options is a gov't dweeb following congressional mandates.
>
> > Hmmm. *Seems to me a person knowing her/his legal options is a good
> > thing. *AARP agrees.
>
> Legal options are now part of the counseling? *LoL.

LoL. "Living wills" and "Powers of attorney" are not legal instruments
in doggy land.

They are for Normal people though. LoL.

> Why don't I find that in the bill?

Because words have always befuddled you? ("Befuddle" is similar to
"confuse". You're welcome.) LoL.

> Maybe it costs too much.
> Man, I'm glad you don't write these bills.
> They suck enough as is.

LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 2, 5:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message

> > >> > You don't believe that such counseling, as defined under HR 3200, isn't
> > >> > a good option?
>
> > >> Are you always so negative?
>
> > > lol *How am I being megative?
>
> > *That would be negative, twice as much as required.
>
> Oh, I see! *You wish to start a grammar war. *How "fun"! *Be ready for
> the incoming.

I hope it's not the case that you didn't see it coming.

> > >> Anyway, no I don't.
>
> (The)
>
> > >> *Last person I will trust with my health care or end
> > >> of
> > >> life
> > >> options is a gov't dweeb following congressional mandates.

Last person I'd expect a grammar war from be 2pid.

[Bret L]

>
> Rmeber that ScottW accused me of "cheating" because I
> consulted an immigration attorney both when I got my H1B
> visa and when I subsequently became a citizen. :-)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Atkinson's only accomplishment is proof our H1B and citizenship standards are
> too low.


At least having to have enough money to hire a lawyer weeds out a
few of the least desireable candidates.....


Anyway, H-1B was originally designed to bring in people with scarce
and highly specialized skills. You have to admit
that to be advocating the purchase of the stuff Stereophile often
commends and advertises, in the current environment, takes scarce and
specialized skills.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 3, 1:57*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2:46*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > Witless gets caught in a trap and tries to chew his paw off.

> > > Atkinson's only accomplishment is proof our H1B and citizenship standards are
> > > too low.
>
> > And yet, the standards have been getting tougher every decade since the '70s.
> > Back in the 19th century, when your foredogs slunk into America, there were no
> > standards. We even let in creatures with communicable diseases.
>
> That explains your presence.

Do you have anything to offer besides low-grade (and unintelligent)
IKYABWAIs?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 3, 2:08*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 2, 3:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
>
> > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > ..
> > > .
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > >> g..
> > > >> .
> > > >> > In article >,
> > > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > >> >> I'll even agree to support Obama's end of life counseling for you.
>
> > > >> >> ScottW
>
> > > >> > You don't believe that such counseling, as defined under HR 3200, isn't
> > > >> > a good option?
>
> > > >> Are you always so negative?
>
> > > > lol *How am I being megative?
>
> > > *That would be negative, twice as much as required.
>
> > Oh, I see! *You wish to start a grammar war. *How "fun"! *Be ready for
> > the incoming.
>
> * Boredom shield raised. *Have at it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >> Anyway, no I don't.
>
> > (The)
>
> > > >> *Last person I will trust with my health care or end
> > > >> of
> > > >> life
> > > >> options is a gov't dweeb following congressional mandates.
>
> > > > Hmmm. *Seems to me a person knowing her/his legal options is a good
> > > > thing. *AARP agrees.
>
> > > Legal options are now part of the counseling? *LoL.
> > > Why don't I find that in the bill?
>
> > I don't know. *Perhaps you have not read it. *Perhaps you have trouble
> > understanding it. *Those seem to be the most obvious possibilities.
>
> > * * * "(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning,
> > including key questions and considerations, important steps, and
> > suggested people to talk to.
>
> > Œ(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including
> > living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
>
> > Œ(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities
> > of a health care proxy.
>
> > Œ(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and
> > State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with
> > advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the
> > advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service
> > organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of
> > 1965).
>
> > Œ(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life
> > services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,
> > and benefits for such services and supports that are available under
> > this title.
>
> > Œ(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life
> > sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--
>
> > * * * Œ(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is
> > beneficial to the individual and the individual¹s family and the reasons
> > why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the
> > individual changes;
>
> > Œ(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to
> > make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
>
> > Œ(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to
> > determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides
> > so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if
> > the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including
> > requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker
> > (also known as a health care proxy).
>
> > * * * Œ(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations
> > under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--
>
> > * * * Œ(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling
> > orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical
> > orders respected across all care settings; and
>
> > Œ(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining
> > treatment described in clause (iii).
>
> > * * * Œ(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a
> > States described in this clause is a program that--
>
> > * * * Œ(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely
> > identifiable throughout the State;
>
> > Œ(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and
> > other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the
> > professional¹s authority under State law) may sign orders for life
> > sustaining treatment;
>
> > Œ(III) provides training for health care professionals across the
> > continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining
> > treatment; and
>
> > Œ(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives
> > from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or
> > nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association,
> > state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state
> > department of health, state hospital association, home health
> > association, state bar association, and state hospice association.
>
> > * * * Œ(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is--
>
> > * * * Œ(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and
>
> > Œ(B) a nurse practitioner or physician¹s assistant who has the authority
> > under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments."
>
> > So why are you against a patient knowing he/she can grant a durable
> > power of attorney?
>
> *Never happenned. * What did happen was you claiming this
> diatribe of stuff (which as you can see is going to be a very
> expensive counseling program to offer to everyone every 5
> years...especially seniors) amounts to your
> best options.
> As a public pension recipient (should you survive that long) they will
> be even less inclined to extend your useless existence any longer than
> absolutely necessary.

That will have a more positie impact than forced sterilizations, 2pid.

I suspect the main difference is that sterilizations won't apply to
you. You have always liked to apply differentstandards to others. LoL.

> I suggest you seek unbiased advice.

You've just accused doctors of breaking their oath. What do you base
this on?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > > Witless gets caught in a trap and tries to chew his paw off.
>
> > > > Atkinson's only accomplishment is proof our H1B and citizenship standards are
> > > > too low.
> >
> > > And yet, the standards have been getting tougher every decade since the '70s.
> > > Back in the 19th century, when your foredogs slunk into America, there were no
> > > standards. We even let in creatures with communicable diseases.
> >
> > That explains your presence.
>
> Do you have anything to offer besides low-grade (and unintelligent)
> IKYABWAIs?

Is that a trick question?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 3, 2:15*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:

> Liars don't deserve anyones support.

Then why did you support bushie re: Iraq?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 3, 5:41*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2:32*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 2:15*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > Liars don't deserve anyones support.
>
> > Then why did you support bushie re: Iraq?
>
> *I believed Clinton.

You've missed the point...again.

> Silly me.

No, just you being you. LoL.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Aug 2, 3:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >
> > >g..
> > > .
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > -september
> > > >>.or
> > > >> g..
> > > >> .
> > > >> > In article >,
> > > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > >> >> I'll even agree to support Obama's end of life counseling for you.
> >
> > > >> >> ScottW
> >
> > > >> > You don't believe that such counseling, as defined under HR 3200,
> > > >> > isn't
> > > >> > a good option?
> >
> > > >> Are you always so negative?
> >
> > > > lol *How am I being megative?
> >
> > > *That would be negative, twice as much as required.
> >
> > Oh, I see! *You wish to start a grammar war. *How "fun"! *Be ready for
> > the incoming.
>
> Boredom shield raised. Have at it.

Then why start it?

>
> >
> >
> >
> > > >> Anyway, no I don't.
> >
> > (The)
> >
> > > >> *Last person I will trust with my health care or end
> > > >> of
> > > >> life
> > > >> options is a gov't dweeb following congressional mandates.
> >
> > > > Hmmm. *Seems to me a person knowing her/his legal options is a good
> > > > thing. *AARP agrees.
> >
> > > Legal options are now part of the counseling? *LoL.
> > > Why don't I find that in the bill?
> >
> > I don't know. *Perhaps you have not read it. *Perhaps you have trouble
> > understanding it. *Those seem to be the most obvious possibilities.
> >
> > * * * "(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning,
> > including key questions and considerations, important steps, and
> > suggested people to talk to.
> >
> > ‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including
> > living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
> >
> > ‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities
> > of a health care proxy.
> >
> > ‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and
> > State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with
> > advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the
> > advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service
> > organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of
> > 1965).
> >
> > ‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life
> > services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,
> > and benefits for such services and supports that are available under
> > this title.
> >
> > ‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life
> > sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--
> >
> > * * * ‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is
> > beneficial to the individual and the individual1s family and the reasons
> > why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the
> > individual changes;
> >
> > ‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to
> > make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
> >
> > ‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to
> > determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides
> > so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if
> > the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including
> > requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker
> > (also known as a health care proxy).
> >
> > * * * ‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations
> > under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--
> >
> > * * * ‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling
> > orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical
> > orders respected across all care settings; and
> >
> > ‘(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining
> > treatment described in clause (iii).
> >
> > * * * ‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a
> > States described in this clause is a program that--
> >
> > * * * ‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely
> > identifiable throughout the State;
> >
> > ‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and
> > other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the
> > professional1s authority under State law) may sign orders for life
> > sustaining treatment;
> >
> > ‘(III) provides training for health care professionals across the
> > continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining
> > treatment; and
> >
> > ‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives
> > from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or
> > nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association,
> > state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state
> > department of health, state hospital association, home health
> > association, state bar association, and state hospice association.
> >
> > * * * ‘(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is--
> >
> > * * * ‘(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and
> >
> > ‘(B) a nurse practitioner or physician1s assistant who has the authority
> > under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments."
> >
> > So why are you against a patient knowing he/she can grant a durable
> > power of attorney?
>
> Never happenned. What did happen was you claiming this
> diatribe of stuff (which as you can see is going to be a very
> expensive counseling program to offer to everyone every 5
> years...especially seniors) amounts to your
> best options.

No, it's me showing you the fact that presenting a person's legal
options are in the bill. You asked why you don't find it in the bill.
I posted it for you.

> As a public pension recipient (should you survive that long) they will
> be even less inclined to extend your useless existence any longer than
> absolutely necessary.
>
> I suggest you seek unbiased advice.

1. The insurance companies have the same lack of inclination that you
claim would be the case under the bill. Why don't you complain about
that?

2. re: my "useless existence" Why does anyone even try to have a
discussion with you?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 3, 6:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:

> 2. re: *my "useless existence" * Why does anyone even try to have a
> discussion with you?

By Jove, I think she's got it!

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> On Aug 3, 6:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > 2. re: *my "useless existence" * Why does anyone even try to have a
> > discussion with you?
>
> By Jove, I think she's got it!

It FINALLY occurred to me that he WANTS me to ignore him. He claims to
post objective facts, but when presented with facts (like, uh, the
bill), he either fades away from the topic or starts with the insults.

[MiNe 109]

In article

>,
Jenn > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > On Aug 3, 6:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > 2. re: *my "useless existence" * Why does anyone even try to have a
> > > discussion with you?
> >
> > By Jove, I think she's got it!
>
> It FINALLY occurred to me that he WANTS me to ignore him. He claims to
> post objective facts, but when presented with facts (like, uh, the
> bill), he either fades away from the topic or starts with the insults.

Or changes the subject abrupty: "meanwhile..."

In cheerier news, here's a document instructing how to disrupt town-hall
meetings in order to kill health care reform:

<http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/08/memo-details-co-ordin
ated-anti-reform-harrassment-strategy.php?page=1&ref=fpblg>

Stephen

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article
>
> >,
> Jenn > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 3, 6:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2. re: *my "useless existence" * Why does anyone even try to have a
> > > > discussion with you?
> > >
> > > By Jove, I think she's got it!
> >
> > It FINALLY occurred to me that he WANTS me to ignore him. He claims to
> > post objective facts, but when presented with facts (like, uh, the
> > bill), he either fades away from the topic or starts with the insults.
>
> Or changes the subject abrupty: "meanwhile..."
>
> In cheerier news, here's a document instructing how to disrupt town-hall
> meetings in order to kill health care reform:
>
> <http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/08/memo-details-co-ordin
> ated-anti-reform-harrassment-strategy.php?page=1&ref=fpblg>
>
> Stephen

Yeah, I heard about this. Interesting.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> The insurance companies have the same lack of inclination that you claim
> would be the case under the bill. Why don't you complain about that?

Because Scottie already has employer-funded insurance, of course.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> re: my "useless existence" Why does anyone even try to have a
> discussion with you?

woof! <grrrr...>

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> In cheerier news, here's a document instructing how to disrupt town-hall
> meetings in order to kill health care reform:

I saw some news footage. Most of the protesters are exercised about the
proposal to offer a government-run ALTERNATIVE to private insurance.

Not only is Scottie not alone in his enduring stupidity, but it's obvious that
he's smack at the mean value of dumbness. For "conservatives", that is.

woof...

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn, please on't skip this gem from Witless.

> > > In cheerier news, here's a document instructing how to disrupt town-hall
> > > meetings in order to kill health care reform:

> > Yeah, I heard about this. *Interesting.

> Damn those citizens for getting organized to voice their displeasure.
> There supposed to sit quiet and act like sheep.

Remember last year, when citizens who dared to criticize Bush's lies were
"traitors"? This year, citizens who criticize Obama are victims of repression.

ScottieLogic is a thing to behold (as long as you don protective eyewear).


--
"There are words and there are definitions.
Sometimes the definition of a word changes with context."
-- Scottie Witlessmongrel, RAO, June 24, 2009

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 3, 7:03*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 3, 4:47*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > *MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > >
> > > >,
> > > *Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 3, 6:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > 2. re: *my "useless existence" * Why does anyone even try to have a
> > > > > > discussion with you?
>
> > > > > By Jove, I think she's got it!
>
> > > > It FINALLY occurred to me that he WANTS me to ignore him. *He claims to
> > > > post objective facts, but when presented with facts (like, uh, the
> > > > bill), he either fades away from the topic or starts with the insults.
>
> > > Or changes the subject abrupty: "meanwhile..."
>
> > > In cheerier news, here's a document instructing how to disrupt town-hall
> > > meetings in order to kill health care reform:
>
> > > <http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/08/memo-details-co-ordin
> > > ated-anti-reform-harrassment-strategy.php?page=1&ref=fpblg>
>
> > > Stephen
>
> > Yeah, I heard about this. *Interesting.
>
> Damn those citizens for getting organized to voice their displeasure.
> There supposed to sit quiet and act like sheep.

Yes, like the gays were supposed to in California after the misguided
vote there.

I wonder what 2pid would say if gays disrupted a town hall meeting.

Oh wait: I already know. LoL.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Aug 3, 4:47*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article
> > >
> > > >,
> > > *Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Aug 3, 6:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > 2. re: *my "useless existence" * Why does anyone even try to have a
> > > > > > discussion with you?
> >
> > > > > By Jove, I think she's got it!
> >
> > > > It FINALLY occurred to me that he WANTS me to ignore him. *He claims to
> > > > post objective facts, but when presented with facts (like, uh, the
> > > > bill), he either fades away from the topic or starts with the insults.
> >
> > > Or changes the subject abrupty: "meanwhile..."
> >
> > > In cheerier news, here's a document instructing how to disrupt town-hall
> > > meetings in order to kill health care reform:
> >
> > > <http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/08/memo-details-co-ordin
> > > ated-anti-reform-harrassment-strategy.php?page=1&ref=fpblg>
> >
> > > Stephen
> >
> > Yeah, I heard about this. *Interesting.
>
> Damn those citizens for getting organized to voice their displeasure.

No, they organized to disrupt. Great for the country, huh?

> There supposed to sit quiet and act like sheep.
>
> ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 3, 6:58*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 3, 4:26*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 3, 6:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > 2. re: *my "useless existence" * Why does anyone even try to have a
> > > > discussion with you?
>
> > > By Jove, I think she's got it!
>
> > It FINALLY occurred to me that he WANTS me to ignore him. *He claims to
> > post objective facts, but when presented with facts (like, uh, the
> > bill), he either fades away from the topic or starts with the insults.
>
> *You just have a thin skin. *It wasn't a personal attack on you. It's
> the general statement that government will determine your value. *Not
> you.

Which is incorrect.

Duh diddly itsax reddly do, 2pid?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Aug 3, 4:26*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 3, 6:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > 2. re: *my "useless existence" * Why does anyone even try to have a
> > > > discussion with you?
> >
> > > By Jove, I think she's got it!
> >
> > It FINALLY occurred to me that he WANTS me to ignore him. *He claims to
> > post objective facts, but when presented with facts (like, uh, the
> > bill), he either fades away from the topic or starts with the insults.
>
> You just have a thin skin. It wasn't a personal attack on you. It's
> the general statement that government will determine your value. Not
> you.
>
> ScottW

I trust the government that is answerable to the electret to do so (if
true) more than I would the insurance companies.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Aug 3, 4:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Aug 2, 3:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> >
> > > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > -septembe
> > > > >r.or
> > > > >g..
> > > > > .
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > -septe
> > > > > >>mber
> > > > > >>.or
> > > > > >> g..
> > > > > >> .
> > > > > >> > In article >,
> > > > > >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> >> I'll even agree to support Obama's end of life counseling for
> > > > > >> >> you.
> >
> > > > > >> >> ScottW
> >
> > > > > >> > You don't believe that such counseling, as defined under HR
> > > > > >> > 3200,
> > > > > >> > isn't
> > > > > >> > a good option?
> >
> > > > > >> Are you always so negative?
> >
> > > > > > lol *How am I being megative?
> >
> > > > > *That would be negative, twice as much as required.
> >
> > > > Oh, I see! *You wish to start a grammar war. *How "fun"! *Be ready for
> > > > the incoming.
> >
> > > * Boredom shield raised. *Have at it.
> >
> > Then why start it?
>
> Isn't that why didn't you not start it?
> An example of your lack of clarity.

No, an example of you trying to back away from responsibility for your
actions. You started a flame war, but are unwilling to have it turned
back on you.

>
> >
> > > > > >> Anyway, no I don't.
> >
> > > > (The)
> >
> > > > > >> *Last person I will trust with my health care or end
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> life
> > > > > >> options is a gov't dweeb following congressional mandates.
> >
> > > > > > Hmmm. *Seems to me a person knowing her/his legal options is a good
> > > > > > thing. *AARP agrees.
> >
> > > > > Legal options are now part of the counseling? *LoL.
> > > > > Why don't I find that in the bill?
> >
> > > > I don't know. *Perhaps you have not read it. *Perhaps you have trouble
> > > > understanding it. *Those seem to be the most obvious possibilities.
> >
> > > > * * * "(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning,
> > > > including key questions and considerations, important steps, and
> > > > suggested people to talk to.
> >
> > > > Œ(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives,
> > > > including
> > > > living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
> >
> > > > Œ(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and
> > > > responsibilities
> > > > of a health care proxy.
> >
> > > > Œ(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and
> > > > State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with
> > > > advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the
> > > > advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service
> > > > organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act
> > > > of
> > > > 1965).
> >
> > > > Œ(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life
> > > > services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,
> > > > and benefits for such services and supports that are available under
> > > > this title.
> >
> > > > Œ(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life
> > > > sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--
> >
> > > > * * * Œ(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is
> > > > beneficial to the individual and the individual1s family and the
> > > > reasons
> > > > why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the
> > > > individual changes;
> >
> > > > Œ(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to
> > > > make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
> >
> > > > Œ(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to
> > > > determine the requirements of the State in which such individual
> > > > resides
> > > > so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if
> > > > the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including
> > > > requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker
> > > > (also known as a health care proxy).
> >
> > > > * * * Œ(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations
> > > > under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--
> >
> > > > * * * Œ(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling
> > > > orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical
> > > > orders respected across all care settings; and
> >
> > > > Œ(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining
> > > > treatment described in clause (iii).
> >
> > > > * * * Œ(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a
> > > > States described in this clause is a program that--
> >
> > > > * * * Œ(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely
> > > > identifiable throughout the State;
> >
> > > > Œ(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and
> > > > other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the
> > > > professional1s authority under State law) may sign orders for life
> > > > sustaining treatment;
> >
> > > > Œ(III) provides training for health care professionals across the
> > > > continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining
> > > > treatment; and
> >
> > > > Œ(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives
> > > > from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or
> > > > nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association,
> > > > state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state
> > > > department of health, state hospital association, home health
> > > > association, state bar association, and state hospice association.
> >
> > > > * * * Œ(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is--
> >
> > > > * * * Œ(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and
> >
> > > > Œ(B) a nurse practitioner or physician1s assistant who has the
> > > > authority
> > > > under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments."
> >
> > > > So why are you against a patient knowing he/she can grant a durable
> > > > power of attorney?
> >
> > > *Never happenned. * What did happen was you claiming this
> > > diatribe of stuff (which as you can see is going to be a very
> > > expensive counseling program to offer to everyone every 5
> > > years...especially seniors) amounts to your
> > > best options.
> >
> > No, it's me showing you the fact that presenting a person's legal
> > options are in the bill.
>
> No they are not. The gov't approved and possibly covered options
> will be in the bill.

Yes, it's a listing of the patient's rights and the applicable coverage.

>
> > *You asked why you don't find it in the bill. *
> > I posted it for you.
>
> Feel free to limit your legal options to those covered in
> the bill if you wish. I prefer to keep my options open.

And there's the beauty of it: unlike what the lying right-wingers say
and their made up "facts" about the bill, you will have those options.

> >
> > > As a public pension recipient (should you survive that long) they will
> > > be even less inclined to extend your useless existence any longer than
> > > absolutely necessary.
> >
> > > I suggest you seek unbiased advice.
> >
> > 1. *The insurance companies have the same lack of inclination that you
> > claim would be the case under the bill. *Why don't you complain about
> > that?
>
> If they did...then health care wouldn't be exceeding inflation.
> Insurance companies realized many years ago that constraining their
> benefits limits their premiums. They like to skim 4-5% off an ever
> growing pie.
> A little less now justifies a lot more later.
> They are also subject to punitive lawsuits. Good luck suing the
> government.

lol What a crock. The insurance companies don't cover for pre-existing
conditions and they would just as soon you croak before you cost them
any cash.

>
> >
> > 2. re: *my "useless existence" * Why does anyone even try to have a
> > discussion with you?
>
> How useful to the government will you be in retirement? You
> certainly won't pay more in taxes than the services you consume.
> Especially seeking all the "counseling".

Are you part of a retirement plan from your business?

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 aug., 20:51, Jenn > wrote:

> lol *What a crock. *The insurance companies don't cover for pre-existing
> conditions and they would just as soon you croak before you cost them
> any cash.
>

Obama claims that the government can get you to croak
even more efficiently than the insurance companies can,
and at a lower cost.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 3 aug., 20:51, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > lol *What a crock. *The insurance companies don't cover for pre-existing
> > conditions and they would just as soon you croak before you cost them
> > any cash.
> >
>
> Obama claims that the government can get you to croak
> even more efficiently than the insurance companies can,
> and at a lower cost.

It does?

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 aug., 20:51, Jenn > wrote:

>
> Are you part of a retirement plan from your business?- Ascundeţi textul citat -
>

Post Office considers closing 1000 branches
from msnbc.com

javascript:vPlayer('32276092','89936da6-de1f-49ea-b497-79e82bb6a879')

fast forward five years and subsitute government health clinics for
US Post Offices

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Are you part of a retirement plan from your business?- Ascunde?i textul citat -

> Post Office considers closing 1000 branches
> fast forward five years and subsitute government health clinics for
> US Post Offices

So you expect that within 5 years, "government health clinics" will lose 60%
of their business for their highest-margin services? Why, because of increased
use of email?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 3 aug., 20:51, Jenn > wrote:
>
> >
> > Are you part of a retirement plan from your business?- Ascundeți textul
> > citat -
> >
>
> Post Office considers closing 1000 branches
> from msnbc.com
>
> javascript:vPlayer('32276092','89936da6-de1f-49ea-b497-79e82bb6a879')
>
> fast forward five years and subsitute government health clinics for
> US Post Offices

For what purpose?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 3, 9:26Â*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Â*Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 3 aug., 20:51, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > Are you part of a retirement plan from your business?- Ascundeți textul
> > > citat -
>
> > Post Office considers closing 1000 branches
> > from msnbc.com
>
> > javascript:vPlayer('32276092','89936da6-de1f-49ea-b497-79e82bb6a879')
>
> > fast forward five years and subsitute government health clinics for
> > US Post Offices
>
> For what purpose?

Clyde apparently is suggesting our waning health indicators have
something to do with the price of stamps. Our postage is lower than
most of the worlds' but our main health indicators are too. It appears
that Clyde is correlating the two.

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 aug., 22:21, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > Are you part of a retirement plan from your business?- Ascunde?i textul citat -
> > Post Office considers closing 1000 branches
> > fast forward five years and subsitute government health clinics for
> > US Post Offices
>
> So you expect that within 5 years, "government health clinics" will lose 60%
> of their business for their highest-margin services? Why, because of increased
> use of email?

LOL!!!
by then they might have lost 60% if their patients due to increased
use of the grim reaper.
Govt run health care will NOT have ANY high margin services.
It is a 100% loss leader. In even worse shape than the post office.

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 aug., 22:26, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Â*Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 3 aug., 20:51, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > Are you part of a retirement plan from your business?- Ascundeți textul
> > > citat -
>
> > Post Office considers closing 1000 branches
> > from msnbc.com
>
> > javascript:vPlayer('32276092','89936da6-de1f-49ea-b497-79e82bb6a879')
>
> > fast forward five years and subsitute government health clinics for
> > US Post Offices
>
> For what purpose?

$

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 aug., 23:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 9:26Â*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > Â*Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 3 aug., 20:51, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > Are you part of a retirement plan from your business?- Ascundeți textul
> > > > citat -
>
> > > Post Office considers closing 1000 branches
> > > from msnbc.com
>
> > > javascript:vPlayer('32276092','89936da6-de1f-49ea-b497-79e82bb6a879')
>
> > > fast forward five years and subsitute government health clinics for
> > > US Post Offices
>
> > For what purpose?
>
> Clyde apparently is suggesting our waning health indicators have
> something to do with the price of stamps. Our postage is lower than
> most of the worlds' but our main health indicators are too. It appears
> that Clyde is correlating the two.

They are not worse than most of the world's indicators
As an example, it is 30 out of 191 (UN members) in life expectancy,
and it would be higher
if not for unhealthy diet and lifestyles, which are not a function
of health insurance coverage.
Health services will get worse, not better, under
government control.

[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW2" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 3, 5:36 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> ScottW2 > wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 4:47 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > >
> > > > >,
> > > > Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > In article
> > > > > >,
> > > > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 3, 6:18 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > 2. re: my "useless existence" Why does anyone even try to have
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > discussion with you?
>
> > > > > > By Jove, I think she's got it!
>
> > > > > It FINALLY occurred to me that he WANTS me to ignore him. He
> > > > > claims to
> > > > > post objective facts, but when presented with facts (like, uh, the
> > > > > bill), he either fades away from the topic or starts with the
> > > > > insults.
>
> > > > Or changes the subject abrupty: "meanwhile..."
>
> > > > In cheerier news, here's a document instructing how to disrupt
> > > > town-hall
> > > > meetings in order to kill health care reform:
>
> > > > <http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/08/memo-details-co-ordin
> > > > ated-anti-reform-harrassment-strategy.php?page=1&ref=fpblg>
>
> > > > Stephen
>
> > > Yeah, I heard about this. Interesting.
>
> > Damn those citizens for getting organized to voice their displeasure.
>
> No, they organized to disrupt. Great for the country, huh?

You bet. Citizens expressing their displeasure with their
representatives is fundamental to this country. The citizenry has too
long abdicated their role to a disconnected washington.

The shocked look on Spectors silly face said it all.

******************

You don't suppose he was shocked at the nihilism of it, and perhaps
disbelief that a party he had long been part of had fallen to the level
where they were trying to destroy rational political discourse?

[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW2" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 3, 5:38 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> ScottW2 > wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 4:26 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 3, 6:18 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > 2. re: my "useless existence" Why does anyone even try to have a
> > > > > discussion with you?
>
> > > > By Jove, I think she's got it!
>
> > > It FINALLY occurred to me that he WANTS me to ignore him. He claims to
> > > post objective facts, but when presented with facts (like, uh, the
> > > bill), he either fades away from the topic or starts with the insults.
>
> > You just have a thin skin. It wasn't a personal attack on you. It's
> > the general statement that government will determine your value. Not
> > you.
>
> > ScottW
>
> I trust the government that is answerable to the electret to do so (if
> true) more than I would the insurance companies.

As if "insurance" companies are all in cahoots together.

Did you ever hear of the "Insurance Research Institute" back in the
'70's/early '80's. Somehow it's "research" consisted mostly of suggesting
rate structures to insurers, who in turn seem obliged to follow the
suggests, to the effect that their was no price competition. A highly
competitive bunch, eh?

BTW, do you have a plan for healthcare in retirement beyond the
grossly underfunded pension/health benefits the government is probably
going to default on?
You should.

ScottW

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Harry Lavo said:

> You don't suppose he was shocked at the nihilism of it, and perhaps
> disbelief that a party he had long been part of had fallen to the level
> where they were trying to destroy rational political discourse?

That party now believes that "rational political discourse" means shouting
"SOCIALISM!" whenever health care is the topic.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 2, 5:29*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> Good to read you, John. *I've been meaning to be in touch since Gordon's
> passing. *My condolences to you and the others at Stereophile who know
> him.

Thanks. My relationship with Gordon was always a bit
prickly given that I both replaced him at the editorial
helm of the magazine he founded and became his
employer. Nevetheless, we worked together for the next
13 years. We will have some appreciations of Gordon
and his life's work in our October issue.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 4 aug., 15:01, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 3, 5:38*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 4:26*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 3, 6:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > 2. re: *my "useless existence" * Why does anyone even try to have a
> > > > > > discussion with you?
>
> > > > > By Jove, I think she's got it!
>
> > > > It FINALLY occurred to me that he WANTS me to ignore him. *He claims to
> > > > post objective facts, but when presented with facts (like, uh, the
> > > > bill), he either fades away from the topic or starts with the insults.
>
> > > *You just have a thin skin. *It wasn't a personal attack on you. It's
> > > the general statement that government will determine your value. *Not
> > > you.
>
> > > ScottW
>
> > I trust the government that is answerable to the electret to do so (if
> > true) more than I would the insurance companies.
>
> *As if "insurance" companies are all in cahoots together.
>
> BTW, do you have a plan for healthcare in retirement beyond the
> grossly underfunded pension/health benefits the government is probably
> going to default on?
> You should.
>
> ScottW

It won't matter, it will be forcibly modified to fit new government
mandated limited
serivces, i.e., managed care, NO private option for an coverage better
than waht the
government will allow.

[Clyde Slick]

On 4 aug., 16:28, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> "ScottW2" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Aug 3, 5:36 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 4:47 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
> > > > > In article
> > > > >
> > > > > >,
> > > > > Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> > > > > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 3, 6:18 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > 2. re: my "useless existence" Why does anyone even try to have
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > discussion with you?
>
> > > > > > > By Jove, I think she's got it!
>
> > > > > > It FINALLY occurred to me that he WANTS me to ignore him. He
> > > > > > claims to
> > > > > > post objective facts, but when presented with facts (like, uh, the
> > > > > > bill), he either fades away from the topic or starts with the
> > > > > > insults.
>
> > > > > Or changes the subject abrupty: "meanwhile..."
>
> > > > > In cheerier news, here's a document instructing how to disrupt
> > > > > town-hall
> > > > > meetings in order to kill health care reform:
>
> > > > > <http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/08/memo-details-co-ordin
> > > > > ated-anti-reform-harrassment-strategy.php?page=1&ref=fpblg>
>
> > > > > Stephen
>
> > > > Yeah, I heard about this. Interesting.
>
> > > Damn those citizens for getting organized to voice their displeasure.
>
> > No, they organized to disrupt. Great for the country, huh?
>
> You bet. * Citizens expressing their displeasure with their
> representatives is fundamental to this country. *The citizenry has too
> long abdicated their role to a disconnected washington.
>
> The shocked look on Spectors silly face said it all.
>
> ******************
>
> You don't suppose he was shocked at the nihilism of it, and perhaps
> disbelief that a party he had long been part of had fallen to the level
> where they were trying to destroy rational political discourse?

Do you say that about leftist disruptive protests, I think not.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 4, 6:28Â*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 3 aug., 23:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 9:26Â*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > Â*Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 3 aug., 20:51, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > Are you part of a retirement plan from your business?- Ascundeți textul
> > > > > citat -
>
> > > > Post Office considers closing 1000 branches
> > > > from msnbc.com
>
> > > > javascript:vPlayer('32276092','89936da6-de1f-49ea-b497-79e82bb6a879')
>
> > > > fast forward five years and subsitute government health clinics for
> > > > US Post Offices
>
> > > For what purpose?
>
> > Clyde apparently is suggesting our waning health indicators have
> > something to do with the price of stamps. Our postage is lower than
> > most of the worlds' but our main health indicators are too. It appears
> > that Clyde is correlating the two.
>
> They are not worse than most of the world's indicators

I of course meant "industrialized".

Or are you proud that our infant mortality is better than Djibouti's?

> As an example, it is 30 out of 191 (UN members) in life expectancy,

Uh-huh. Where does that place us with regard to the rest of the
industrialized nations?

> and it would be higher
> if not for unhealthy diet and lifestyles, which are not a function
> of health insurance coverage.

Infant mortality is.

> Health services will get worse, not better, under
> government control.

Be that as it may it has had a positive impact on the rest of the
industrialized world.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
ScottW2 > wrote:

> On Aug 3, 5:36*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW2 > wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 4:47*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > *MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> >
> > > > > In article
> > > > >
> > > > > rg
> > > > > >,
> > > > > *Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
> > > > > > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Aug 3, 6:18*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > 2. re: *my "useless existence" * Why does anyone even try to
> > > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > discussion with you?
> >
> > > > > > > By Jove, I think she's got it!
> >
> > > > > > It FINALLY occurred to me that he WANTS me to ignore him. *He
> > > > > > claims to
> > > > > > post objective facts, but when presented with facts (like, uh, the
> > > > > > bill), he either fades away from the topic or starts with the
> > > > > > insults.
> >
> > > > > Or changes the subject abrupty: "meanwhile..."
> >
> > > > > In cheerier news, here's a document instructing how to disrupt
> > > > > town-hall
> > > > > meetings in order to kill health care reform:
> >
> > > > > <http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/08/memo-details-co-or
> > > > > din
> > > > > ated-anti-reform-harrassment-strategy.php?page=1&ref=fpblg>
> >
> > > > > Stephen
> >
> > > > Yeah, I heard about this. *Interesting.
> >
> > > Damn those citizens for getting organized to voice their displeasure.
> >
> > No, they organized to disrupt. *Great for the country, huh?
>
> You bet. Citizens expressing their displeasure with their
> representatives is fundamental to this country. The citizenry has too
> long abdicated their role to a disconnected washington.
>
> The shocked look on Spectors silly face said it all.
>
> ScottW

So instead of a meeting where questions are asked and answered and
points are debated, you favor shouting down a speaker so that noting can
be asked or answered and nothing can be debated.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 4, 2:44*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 3, 5:51*pm, Jenn > wrote:

> > lol *What a crock. *The insurance companies don't cover for pre-existing
> > conditions and they would just as soon you croak before you cost them
> > any cash.
>
> * BS. *Dead customers don't pay premiums.

Duh.

Premium-paying customers who cost more in payouts than their premiums
cover are of no value to an insurance company. Otherwise you'd see TV
ads like "Do you have a serious preexisting medical condition? We're
the insurance company for you!"

Instead what you see are letters like, "We're very sorry, but we
cannot extend coverage for you because of your preexisting condition".

Duh.

Gbba drowl whastub, 2pid?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 4, 1:53*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 3, 5:36*pm, Jenn > wrote:

> > No, they organized to disrupt. *Great for the country, huh?
>
> You bet. * Citizens expressing their displeasure with their
> representatives is fundamental to this country. *The citizenry has too
> long abdicated their role to a disconnected washington.

Hm. The "expression of disleasure" is called a "harrassment strategy".

Don't you find that odd? What if some say, African-Americans had a
similar "harrassment strategy" about Affirmative Action"? Would your
position be the same?

(Answer: no.)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 4, 6:18*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:

> It was clear Arlen needed an education on how his constituents feel.

I'm sure you meant 'education'.

And I'm equally sure you meant "some constituents".

Duh.

[Clyde Slick]

On 4 aug., 18:05, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 6:28Â*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3 aug., 23:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 9:26Â*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > Â*Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 3 aug., 20:51, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Are you part of a retirement plan from your business?- Ascundeți textul
> > > > > > citat -
>
> > > > > Post Office considers closing 1000 branches
> > > > > from msnbc.com
>
> > > > > javascript:vPlayer('32276092','89936da6-de1f-49ea-b497-79e82bb6a879')
>
> > > > > fast forward five years and subsitute government health clinics for
> > > > > US Post Offices
>
> > > > For what purpose?
>
> > > Clyde apparently is suggesting our waning health indicators have
> > > something to do with the price of stamps. Our postage is lower than
> > > most of the worlds' but our main health indicators are too. It appears
> > > that Clyde is correlating the two.
>
> > They are not worse than most of the world's indicators
>
> I of course meant "industrialized".
>
> Or are you proud that our infant mortality is better than Djibouti's?
>
> > As an example, it is 30 out of 191 (UN members) in life expectancy,
>
> Uh-huh. Where does that place us with regard to the rest of the
> industrialized nations?
>
> > and it would be higher
> > if not for unhealthy diet and lifestyles, which are not a function
> > of health insurance coverage.
>
> Infant mortality is.
>
> > Health services will get worse, not better, under
> > government control.
>
> Be that as it may it has had a positive impact on the rest of the
> industrialized world.

no, it has not.
at any rate, our government is a different government
than any of the others. It is notoriously
inept, uncaring, innattentive.,and wasteful.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 4, 7:42*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 4 aug., 18:05, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 6:28*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 3 aug., 23:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:

> > > > Clyde apparently is suggesting our waning health indicators have
> > > > something to do with the price of stamps. Our postage is lower than
> > > > most of the worlds' but our main health indicators are too. It appears
> > > > that Clyde is correlating the two.
>
> > > They are not worse than most of the world's indicators
>
> > I of course meant "industrialized".
>
> > Or are you proud that our infant mortality is better than Djibouti's?
>
> > > As an example, it is 30 out of 191 (UN members) in life expectancy,
>
> > Uh-huh. Where does that place us with regard to the rest of the
> > industrialized nations?
>
> > > and it would be higher
> > > if not for unhealthy diet and lifestyles, which are not a function
> > > of health insurance coverage.
>
> > Infant mortality is.
>
> > > Health services will get worse, not better, under
> > > government control.
>
> > Be that as it may it has had a positive impact on the rest of the
> > industrialized world.
>
> no, it has not.

Yes, it has.

> at any rate, our government is a different government
> than any of the others. It is notoriously
> inept, uncaring, innattentive.,and wasteful.

Funny, that sounds like US healthcare insurers.

[Clyde Slick]

On 4 aug., 20:54, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 7:42*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4 aug., 18:05, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > wrote:
> > > On Aug 4, 6:28*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 3 aug., 23:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > Clyde apparently is suggesting our waning health indicators have
> > > > > something to do with the price of stamps. Our postage is lower than
> > > > > most of the worlds' but our main health indicators are too. It appears
> > > > > that Clyde is correlating the two.
>
> > > > They are not worse than most of the world's indicators
>
> > > I of course meant "industrialized".
>
> > > Or are you proud that our infant mortality is better than Djibouti's?
>
> > > > As an example, it is 30 out of 191 (UN members) in life expectancy,
>
> > > Uh-huh. Where does that place us with regard to the rest of the
> > > industrialized nations?
>
> > > > and it would be higher
> > > > if not for unhealthy diet and lifestyles, which are not a function
> > > > of health insurance coverage.
>
> > > Infant mortality is.
>
> > > > Health services will get worse, not better, under
> > > > government control.
>
> > > Be that as it may it has had a positive impact on the rest of the
> > > industrialized world.
>
> > no, it has not.
>
> Yes, it has.
>
> > at any rate, our government is a different government
> > than any of the others. It is notoriously
> > inept, uncaring, innattentive.,and wasteful.
>
> Funny, that sounds like US healthcare insurers.

our government will be much worse.
It has never run anything well.
Look at veteran's health care system.
It's shameful.

Our healthcare sysytem is very good, the only
problem is that not everyone has access.
that is the problem that needs to be fixed.
we don't need and don't want a government run health care system/

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 4 aug., 20:54, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 7:42*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 4 aug., 18:05, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Aug 4, 6:28*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On 3 aug., 23:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Clyde apparently is suggesting our waning health indicators have
> > > > > > something to do with the price of stamps. Our postage is lower than
> > > > > > most of the worlds' but our main health indicators are too. It
> > > > > > appears
> > > > > > that Clyde is correlating the two.
> >
> > > > > They are not worse than most of the world's indicators
> >
> > > > I of course meant "industrialized".
> >
> > > > Or are you proud that our infant mortality is better than Djibouti's?
> >
> > > > > As an example, it is 30 out of 191 (UN members) in life expectancy,
> >
> > > > Uh-huh. Where does that place us with regard to the rest of the
> > > > industrialized nations?
> >
> > > > > and it would be higher
> > > > > if not for unhealthy diet and lifestyles, which are not a function
> > > > > of health insurance coverage.
> >
> > > > Infant mortality is.
> >
> > > > > Health services will get worse, not better, under
> > > > > government control.
> >
> > > > Be that as it may it has had a positive impact on the rest of the
> > > > industrialized world.
> >
> > > no, it has not.
> >
> > Yes, it has.
> >
> > > at any rate, our government is a different government
> > > than any of the others. It is notoriously
> > > inept, uncaring, innattentive.,and wasteful.
> >
> > Funny, that sounds like US healthcare insurers.
>
> our government will be much worse.
> It has never run anything well.

A ludicrous statement.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Aug 2, 5:29*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > Good to read you, John. *I've been meaning to be in touch since Gordon's
> > passing. *My condolences to you and the others at Stereophile who know
> > him.
>
> Thanks. My relationship with Gordon was always a bit
> prickly given that I both replaced him at the editorial
> helm of the magazine he founded and became his
> employer. Nevetheless, we worked together for the next
> 13 years. We will have some appreciations of Gordon
> and his life's work in our October issue.

Great. A one-of-a-kind guy, I understand.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> > > > at any rate, our government is a different government
> > > > than any of the others. It is notoriously
> > > > inept, uncaring, innattentive.,and wasteful.
> > >
> > > Funny, that sounds like US healthcare insurers.
> >
> > our government will be much worse.
> > It has never run anything well.
>
> A ludicrous statement.

You're attacking Sacky's religion. Is that how you want to play this?

[MiNe 109]

In article

>,
Jenn > wrote:

> > > Funny, that sounds like US healthcare insurers.
> >
> > our government will be much worse.
> > It has never run anything well.
>
> A ludicrous statement.

I guess Sackie missed William Kristol on TDS.

Stephen