Forum Thread

Claiborne Reservoir Topics

(Claiborne Reservoir Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

84,091 messages

Updated 11/8/2024 10:28:12 AM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,204 messages

Updated 9/14/2024 10:10:50 AM

Claiborne Reservoir Fishing

(Claiborne Reservoir Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,172 messages

Updated 9/9/2024 5:04:44 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,262 messages

Updated 11/6/2024 6:43:09 PM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,979 messages

Updated 6/26/2024 5:03:03 AM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	This guy gets it - Big time
Date:	8/26/2009 7:09:37 PM

A must see on Health care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc&feature=player_embedded

URL: A must see on health care

Name:	JustAGuy -	Reply
Subject:	This guy gets it - Big time
Date:	8/26/2009 7:28:37 PM

I predict that Mike Rogers of Michigan is positioning himself for a run in 2012 for (1) president of the U.S., (2) Senator from Michigan, or (3) Governor of Michigan (to be followed by a run for the U.S. Presidency in 2016 or 2020). Just my opinion. Book it and we can re-visit it in 2012.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	This guy gets it - Big time
Date:	8/26/2009 9:00:41 PM

JAC,
This guy impressed you that much that you think he should be the president? WOW! :)

Name:	JustAGuy -	Reply
Subject:	This guy gets it - Big time
Date:	8/26/2009 9:06:18 PM

Sorry ... didn't say I endorsed him ... just making my predictions about his future endeavors. He is striving for national election ... :)

Name:	JustAGuy -	Reply
Subject:	Perhaps ...
Date:	8/26/2009 9:07:52 PM

he is the Republican Messiah .. :)

Name:	Lady -	Reply
Subject:	This guy gets it - Big time
Date:	8/26/2009 10:18:43 PM

I'd love to know where he got his info about breast cancer. I don't think so!

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Hey Guys.
Date:	8/26/2009 10:31:02 PM

Now if I were one of the ones tagged as die-hard right (which apparently I am not, just ask Archie) I would say you are dwelling on the messenger because you can't refute the message. What say you?

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	This guy gets it - Big time
Date:	8/26/2009 10:33:22 PM

He noted his sources in the video -- some organizations in Britain and Canada - but it wasn't clear whether they were Government agencies or private. In any case, unless he or they are liars, those are some pretty danming statistics.

Name:	JustAGuy -	Reply
Subject:	Hey Guys.
Date:	8/26/2009 11:07:58 PM

I never said that I wouldn't vote for him ... I just think he is positioning himself for higher office ... maybe that's a good thing ... maybe not .... time will tell.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	This guy gets it - Big time
Date:	8/27/2009 12:39:21 AM

Lady,
-Reference your post above, ...why don't you think the US has a better breast cancer cure rate than Britain? You seem to believe that strongly, but I couldn't discern why.

-In our present heath care debate, the only numbers the administration wants to compare are longevity and infant mortality numbers. However, longevity has as much to do with life-style as with care. For example, the number one country in longevity is Japan, --because they eat fish and rice and thus are usually at optimum weight level thus avoiding heart disease that we get from meat, fries, and cokes. Another reason US longevity numbers are down is because of teh wide diversity of ethnic and racial groups we have in our coountry, --in other words a lot of longevity has to do with genes. When you break down our national numbers into ethnic/racial group numbers, you see that within our country, orientals have some of teh longest life spans,while blacks have some of teh shortest, similar to the numbers in their country of origins. Additionally, our longevity numbers are effected by muder and traffic deaths, some of teh highest in teh world. But none of these numbers are directly related to health care.

-On the other hand, the administration does not want to compare cancer survival rates. Cancer survival rates relate directly, and usually wholely, to the impact of the health care that the cancer patient recieves. IN these numbers, teh US health care comes out on top.

-Below is an article, that provides more information on these numbers. Unfortunately, it doesn't break out breast cancer numbers for women from all cancers for women. However, teh lancet article it refers to might do that. I hope the below article helps...

Tuesday, July 21, 2009, 12:55 PM
Wesley J. Smith
One of the excellent aspects of the current American health care system is that most people can get immediate help if they become very ill. Not true in places like Canada or the UK, where waiting lines for crucial imaging tests can range in the several months–years that for cancer patients can mean the difference between living and dying.

I decided to do a little research on cancer survival rates, and it turns out USA is # 1. From the fact sheet put out in 07 from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

According to the survey of cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology :

American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women. [See Figure I.]
American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.
Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.
For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland) have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.
These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal health care system, fares worse than the European average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent; women, only 53 percent.

But what about Canada, Wesley? Canada is the ideal of single payer health care:

Canada’s system of national health insurance is often cited as a model for the United States. But an analysis of 2001 to 2003 data by June O’Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and economist David O’Neill, found that overall cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Canada:

For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.
For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.

Early diagnosis is the key, which gets us to the crucial screening issue:

It is often claimed that people have better access to preventive screenings in universal health care systems. But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly, and once diagnosed, have the fastest access to treatment. For example, a Commonwealth Fund report showed that women in the United States were more likely to get a PAP test for cervical cancer every two years than women in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great Britain, where health insurance is guaranteed by the government.

* In the United States, 85 percent of women aged 25 to 64 years have regular PAP smears, compared with 58 percent in Great Britain.
* The same is true for mammograms; in the United States, 84 percent of women aged 50 to 64 years get them regularly — a higher percentage than in Australia, Canada or New Zealand, and far higher than the 63 percent of British women.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	This guy gets it - Big time
Date:	8/27/2009 12:53:46 AM

Lady and others,
-In looking a little deeper I came up with more detailed numbers from the study discussed in my above post. This below cut does provide some info on breast cancer....

(the following numbers are from teh study>>)
Survival Rates for Specific Cancers. U.S. survival rates are higher than the average in Europe for 13 of 16 types of cancer reported in Lancet Oncology , confirming the results of previous studies. As Figure II shows:

Of cancers that affect primarily men, the survival rate among Americans for bladder cancer is 15 percentage points higher than the European average; for prostate cancer, it is 28 percentage points higher.

Of cancers that affect women only, the survival rate among Americans for uterine cancer is about 5 percentage points higher than the European average; for breast cancer, it is 14 percentage points higher.

The United States has survival rates of 90 percent or higher for five cancers (skin melanoma, breast, prostate, thyroid and testicular), but there is only one cancer for which the European survival rate reaches 90 percent (testicular).

Furthermore, the Lancet Oncology study found that lung cancer patients in the United States have the best chance of surviving five years — about 16 percent — whereas patients in Great Britain have only an 8 percent chance, which is lower than the European average of 11 percent.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	Archie
Date:	8/27/2009 7:44:03 AM

What do you think? More right wing BS?

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Yankee
Date:	8/27/2009 8:25:58 AM

Great posts. Looks like you've stopped drinking the kool aid. Congratulations.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	It is
Date:	8/27/2009 8:33:27 AM

as long as he merely rattles off the RW talking points instead of offering a politically possible alternative. I don't want the 85% who are insured now to be punished to support the 15% who aren't either. That would be simply a continuation of what we are doing now. Just who do you think pays for a 24 year old uninsured man who is wheeled into the Emergency room after he wrecks his motorcycle?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Another fact-free post from
Date:	8/27/2009 9:54:57 AM

Lady. You have to admit she is consistent. She drops by, lets fly a completely false and source free statement and then disappears....

Name:	Lady -	Reply
Subject:	Yankee06
Date:	8/27/2009 10:05:05 AM

I stand corrected. I never compared the US with England as I don't think universal health care is even being considered here, so what would be the point. I did try to compare the US with Canada and the information I found appears not to be accurate. Canada's five-year survival rate for breast cancer is 3% below the USA's. I was wrong. Thank you for your sources.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	Interesting
Date:	8/27/2009 10:13:00 AM

we all understand that the system now absorbs the emergency care of the uninsured. But the question is if that 24 year old is uninsured by choice or that he can not get the coverage. If he has a mortcycle, he is "required" under law to carry insurance. He should also be "required" to carry health insurance.

Reform is needed, but it is not 15% that can not get insurance, it is actually a relatively small percentage and that is the point. We do not have to totally redesign our health care system for the small percent that can not get healthcare for one reason or another.

There have been many viable alternatives proposed to address that specific issue, but the liberals in congress, that you seem to agree with, put on blinders and turn a deaf ear to any idea that is not government controlled socialized medicine.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Archie
Date:	8/27/2009 10:59:30 AM

Just exactly who do you think will pay for the motorcycle rider under socialized medicine? The same taxpayer that will pay due to cost shifting by the hospital now. One very important difference, the hospital now can go after the rider to collect what they can and he must suffer financially for making the choice not to have insurance. o-BAMAcare gives him a free ride and sticks the taxpayer for his insurance, because if the rider chose not to have insurance in your example, he sure as h*ll will figure out a loophole to avoid paying for o-BAMAcare.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	Lady
Date:	8/27/2009 11:59:59 AM

-Lady,
-reference above posts....
-Everyone of us on this forum, at one time or another, myself included, has been wrong, mispoke, or been misled.
-you are one of the few who has acknowledged it with grace and inquisitivenss.
-looking forward to your future posts, whether we cross swords over them or not.
-hope you have a great day!

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	excellent point (nfm)
Date:	8/27/2009 12:50:47 PM

Name:	Summer Lover -	Reply
Subject:	Won't have to look far
Date:	8/27/2009 1:23:22 PM

To find a "loophole" - just do like so many of the uninsured do now - work for under the table money, problem solved.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Suggestion
Date:	8/27/2009 2:48:25 PM

I have on at least three occasions posted extensive ideas for what I believe is needed to reform healthcare INSURANCE. If you go back and review you will find that My ideas bear little resemblance to the proposals being considered by either side in the current debate. I basically believe 1/ Insurance must be mandated for each individual, 2/Employers must be prohibited from providing health insurance directly as part of employment, 3/ Private providers be prohibited from cherry picking, refusing coverage for pre-existing conditions or dropping you because you get sick actually need to call on them. 4/ For those who cannot afford to pay for themselves a state controlled private insurance pool of providers be set up to offer an "assigned risk" policy with taxpayer funded supplement to premium, 5/ preventative medicine including a yearly physical be required with a fine or tax sur charge being imposed on those who refuse.

Name:	Summer Lover -	Reply
Subject:	Suggestion
Date:	8/27/2009 3:09:31 PM

About the only thing missing, since the "Arch Fair Health Care Plan" mandates routine physicals, is the requirement that restricts any unhealthy or potentially hazardous activity unless approved by your health care provider. I hope that you will update your future submits to include this requirement. It simply is not fair for those of you not engaging in such activities to have to bear the cost for those of us who are.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	OK, What's your plan?
Date:	8/27/2009 6:54:42 PM

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	OK, What's your plan?
Date:	8/27/2009 10:14:38 PM

I think you and I agree that some form of true competition and getting the consumer closer to paying the actual cost of their health care decisions is the key to this problem. I think we also agreed that neither of us knew exactly how to do that.

I heard an interesting statistic today that frankly took me by surprise. 110 million (or 1/3rd) of Americans already rely on government (state and Federal) for health care coverage. Medicare, Medicade, SCHIP, Veterans, various state programs like TennCare, etc. Considering 1/3rd of the entire cost of health care is already paid by government and the continuing rise in health care costs it is readily apparent that governemnt is not the solution and in fact may significantly contribute to the problem.

One caveat, I did not ground truth this fact so it may be overstated. But if it is indeed true then it does not bode well for turning any more of the system over to the government. What a conundrum....

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Don't hold your breath
Date:	8/27/2009 10:16:06 PM

She likes to type before engaging her brain and is a frequent drive-by poster with limited knowledge of truth or facts.

Name:	Summer Lover -	Reply
Subject:	OK, What's your plan?
Date:	8/28/2009 9:35:09 AM

My plan? I am very satisfied with my plan now. I do not want the Government to steal more of my tax dollars to fund insurance for people who are illegal or too irresponsible to have insurance. As my RN neighbor says “imagine more intrusion into healthcare by an agency with the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the Post Office”. My wife and I both work full-time jobs for employers who consider health insurance to be a benefit that helps maintain a stable workforce and are fortunate in that fact. The foundation of the “Summer Plan” is based on personal responsibility. We as adults are responsible for our own eating and exercise habits, we as parents are responsible for MOST of our children’s like habits. If you have a child who is obese and/or sedentary – it is for the most part your fault – you fix it. We have a family member who is in her upper 20’s and has no medical insurance – by choice. She, like so many others these days, works jobs that give her more… flexibility with scheduling (read that as – if something comes up, she won’t be at work). If she would give up the cigarettes and cut back on the drinking, she could easily afford health insurance. As far as disallowing pre-existing conditions – although it sounds cruel, without mandated insurance, how many people would enroll in a plan specifically to cover an upcoming expense, then drop it after they have reaped the benefits? In case you have not seen the news in the past ten years, there is a shortage of doctors – especially general practice and OB’s. You can have all the insurance that our benevolent Government will give you, but without someone to go to you are SOL. Those of us able to pay for medical concierge services will always have access to healthcare, so the playing field will NEVER be level if that is your goal. We need to look at increasing the number of doctors in our country – maybe we should look at tort reform and more subsidized education in return for contracted service. From what MM said it sounds like we are already helping out a substantial percentage of our population, and I feel NO obligation to assist those who are in this country illegally.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	OK, What's your plan?
Date:	8/28/2009 10:13:53 PM

What a misguided rant. Do you realize that the average American family with insurance is now paying directly or through an employer between $12000 and $16000 per year for that coverage. At the present rate of increase it will be between $28000 and $35000
in just 10 years. That is insane! If you think Obama's spending is destroying the country how can you be so unconcerned by Healthcare costs? Maybe it will never be a problem for you but what about your children and grandchildren? And BTW, you show how petty you are by the way you belittle the Post Office. It shows how you don't think through what you say. Sure, the PO has a lot of surley folks working behind the counter but no worse than CVS drugs and, more importantly, the PO can deliver a letter from Key West to Nome in 3 or 4 days for 44 cents. In my book that is a miracle, not something to be sneered at. As so many of your fellow nuts have said of me, JaG and a few others that are so presumptuous as to question the opinions you shout, you are pathetic!

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	AND
Date:	8/28/2009 10:18:08 PM

Whether any of us like it or not, a lot of good American citizens have somehow been unable, for whatever reason, to acheive the "perfection" in all aspects of life that you obviously have.

Name:	Summer Lover -	Reply
Subject:	Get someone to read it for you
Date:	8/29/2009 8:31:01 AM

Misguided rant eh? Looks more like YOU are the one who missed the mark with your interpretation. It seems to me that half of my rant was with regards to personal responsibility, but I guess that reflects one of the glaring differences between my opinions vs. that of the “liberal viewpoint.” My brother and I were raised by two parents, not a village – and were taught to be proud of our accomplishments, but were NOT told that we should have high self-esteem simply because we existed. I did NOT say that I was unconcerned about healthcare costs, I will say that the Government at any level has far less of a need to be efficient than the private sector. I also said that we HAVE a shortage of GP and OB’s – how is the Obama /Architect plan going to solve that? I will try to simplify this for you – if a store has one dozen eggs available each day, and forty people are each given an Qbama Voucher for one egg – how many people each day will get an egg? On a more personal note – my wife and I are squarely middle-class, we do not live over our means, nor do we have class-envy. I am happy for those who have been successful, but am not driven by a desire to impress them. WE do not have any need to seek counseling trying to find out why some have more material items than we do, and some less. If life has been unfair to you – get over it, get your prescription upped, or simply drown in your own tears. I understand now why so many people in this country choose to hide behind mommy, Uncle Obama, and his Press Secretary - Ms. Gibbs – thank you for that.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Get someone to read it for you
Date:	8/29/2009 11:32:46 AM

You know I've had a good life and have been successful but I know that a lot of my success was because others had the willingness to give me an opportunity. Even though I had great parents I also realize that society and its people (the village) played a part in my success. I think I did interpret your rant correctly. You think you did it all by yourself, you have yours and to heck with anyone else. There are words for it...selfishness, greed, arrogance...

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Like It or Not
Date:	8/29/2009 11:49:48 AM

It may well be those three characteristics that have built the economic infrastructure we enjoy today.

Without them there likely would be nothing on which to base another, seemingly contradictory, characteristic: philanthropy.

One can't give what one doesn't have.

Of course the problem with this administration is not philanthropy, it is larceny.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	You make good points
Date:	8/30/2009 10:38:13 AM

My problem is that so many more who have made it are insistant on keeping it and so few are willing to pass some of it on to encourage and make it for others to begin their journey to get it. Somewhere in the back of my mind is a song that says something like "it's only when you give it away that you really keep it". I'm sure most on this board are "philenthropic" but our society is becoming less and less so as the corporate philosophy and social Darwinism of the likes of Boortz and Limbaugh gain more influence.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	You make good points
Date:	8/31/2009 4:21:22 PM

What percentage of your income goes to charity? If you look at numerous studies conservatives give more on a percentage basis to charity than liberals. So quit lecturing us on how we are greedy. I've told this story before but I was waiting on a cab in a DC hotel where a liberal group had just met. The two liberals in front of me were chatting on about their progressive radio shows. The doorman hails a cab for the first guy....no tip. The second one (a lady) gives him a few coins. I give him $10 and tell him it covered the enlightened liberals in front of me.....he was still laughing as I got in the cab.

No liberal helped me achieve what I have and no poor person even gave me a job. I am all for helping my fellow man and do so to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars a year. But I resent being told that government should have the right to take from me at the point of a gun and give it to someone that didn't earn it. Conservatives walk the talk by giving voluntarily to charity. Liberals make themselves feel better by trying to use the government to take from others.

Talk about greed and hypocrisy. Its never about result, only about intentions.

Quick Links
Claiborne Reservoir News
Claiborne Reservoir Photos
Claiborne Reservoir Videos