Thread: Deadly Doctors?

Hey, look! Another throwaway lobbyist email account!

Do you cover your lawn with Astroturf, too, or only use that for fake
grass roots lobbying?


On Aug 16, 1:15*pm, Bamboozled <Bambo...@nospam.com> wrote:
> I have not heard one Townhall question on the issue of the President's
> prominent health care advisors who recommend rationing *health care to
> the elderly, to the very young, and to the seriously handicapped. Here
> is a letter I wrote to Whitehouse.gov. I'll let you know if I get an
> answer.

Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> Hey, look! Another throwaway lobbyist email account!
>
> Do you cover your lawn with Astroturf, too, or only use that for fake
> grass roots lobbying?

Ad hominem attack--no substance.

Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> Hey, look! Another throwaway lobbyist email account!

If "bamboozled" is wrong, why not say how and why?

The above is not consistent with your usual credibility.

By the way, I don't think a munged address is a "throwaway
email account," especially when the same address has been
on posts for at least two weeks.



--
Wes Groleau

After the christening of his baby brother in church, Jason sobbed
all the way home in the back seat of the car. His father asked him
three times what was wrong. Finally, the boy replied, "That preacher
said he wanted us brought up in a Christian home, and I wanted to
stay with you guys."

In message <h69m5s$gdh$[email protected]>, Bamboozled wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > Hey, look! Another throwaway lobbyist email account!
> >
> > Do you cover your lawn with Astroturf, too, or only use that for fake
> > grass roots lobbying?
>
> Ad hominem attack--no substance.

Naw, thats not an ad-hom...now *this* is an ad hom:

**** right off you goat raping cocksucker.

^_^

--
Proof of Americas 3rd world status:
http://www.ramusa.org/
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people
by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and
sudden usurpations.... The means of defense against foreign danger historically
have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
-James Madison

In message <h69es4$6m8$[email protected]>, Bamboozled wrote:
> I have not heard one Townhall question on the issue of the President's
> prominent health care advisors who recommend rationing health care to
> the elderly...

Because the people who attend have been rational?

Folks in the UK laugh at us, dimmy:

"There are few tribes more loathsome than the American right" (Guardian UK)

The Guardian (UK) - Simon Hoggart, August 15

There are few tribes more loathsome than the American right, and their vicious
use of the shortcomings in the NHS to
attack Barack Obama's attempts at health reform are a useful reminder.

I was thinking of this during a visit to my 91-year-old dad who is still in an
NHS hospital after three weeks, recovering
from a broken hip. He has had fantastic care, including a new metal hip, blood
transfusions, different antibiotics to match
every aspect of his condition; all administered by nurses who remain cheerful
even when asked to perform tasks on men 
the lethal combination of pain and old age makes some in the ward exceedingly
grumpy  that I would not want to do for
£1,000 a time. If he was in an American hospital he'd be using up half his
life savings to get that standard of care, and few
ordinary Americans could afford the insurance that would provide it. (This is
because health insurers spend a large part of
their income on PR against the "socialised medicine" and on sending pro forma
letters explaining why your policy doesn't
cover actual illness.) All over the US there are people whose lives are being
destroyed for lack of proper health care
provision, and there is no sight more odious than the rich, powerful and
arrogant trying to keep it that way.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardia...-hoggarts-week


--
Proof of Americas 3rd world status:
http://www.ramusa.org/
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people
by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and
sudden usurpations.... The means of defense against foreign danger historically
have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
-James Madison

You seem to be unable to deal with the points I raised relative to
Obama's two special health advisors who have publicly advocated
rationing care to the very young, seniors, and seriously disabled.

Obama needs to explain these appointments and you need to argue
intelligently instead of wasting time by baiting others, something
you're a master at.

You're quite the master baiter.

On Aug 16, 3:56*pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > Hey, look! Another throwaway lobbyist email account!
>
> If "bamboozled" is wrong, why not say how and why?
>
> The above is not consistent with your usual credibility.
>
> By the way, I don't think a munged address is a "throwaway
> email account," especially when the same address has been
> on posts for at least two weeks.

No, a munged address is fine. But such an address with no previous
history or content whatsoever, cross-posting to multiple rather
distinct groups, popping up with a political diatribe, is a spammer in
another form sending Unsolicited Bulk Communications. That wasn't a
personal message, that was a professionally written form letter
pretending otherwise. If nothing, the subtleties of paragraph and
sentence formation strongly indicate to *my* experienced ear that it
was written by a committee, not an individual.

On Aug 16, 7:45*pm, Bamboozled <Bambo...@nospam.com> wrote:
> You seem to be unable to deal with the points I raised relative to
> Obama's two special health advisors who have publicly advocated
> rationing care to the *very young, seniors, and seriously disabled.
>
> Obama needs to explain these appointments and you need to argue
> intelligently instead of wasting time by baiting others, something
> you're a master at.
>
> You're quite the master baiter.

You just cited a "New York Post" article as your primary source for
calling these physicians "Deadly Doctors". Has anyone else here ever
read the New York Post? I was amazed to find a London-style right-wing
ranting, pop-star worshipping scandal rag on a Boston subway, but
there have apparently been some changes while I was away.

The fact quality of New York Post articles approximates that of the
Weekly World News. In fact, because the Weekly World News gathers a
lot of its material from weirder Associated Press articles that have
independent verification, I'd actually rate it higher.

The "article" in question is taking what are, in fact, sensible quotes
and stretching them into "they're gonna let granny die!" claims. And
let's face it: American health care does have serious problems with a
hospital spending $2500 on an MRI that is not likely to reveal
anything about the injuries when a skilled doctor can diagnose faster,
with less cost, and better patient comfort by simply palpating their
abddomen. But doctors right now in the USA engage in a lot of "Cover
Your Ass" policies, forced on them by malpractice-shy insurance and
health group policies, and

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:06:08 -0700 (PDT), Nico Kadel-Garcia
<[email protected]> wrote:

> But doctors right now in the USA engage in a lot of "Cover
>Your Ass" policies, forced on them by malpractice-shy insurance and
>health group policies, and...


Bingo.
The only thing needed for the entire health care industry is to
keep the f'ing lawyers out of it.

I know of more than one doctor that got out of the industry
entirely after his business insurance topped $800,000/year with NO
PREVIOUS MALPRACTICE CLAIMS.

Like just about everything in the US, lawyers have found a way to
steal a living off it.

On Aug 16, 10:58*pm, scrape <scrapeNOTHA...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:06:08 -0700 (PDT), Nico Kadel-Garcia
>
> <nka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But doctors right now in the USA engage in a lot of "Cover
> >Your Ass" policies, forced on them by malpractice-shy insurance and
> >health group policies, and...
>
> Bingo.
> The only thing needed for the entire health care industry is to
> keep the f'ing lawyers out of it.
>
> I know of more than one doctor that got out of the industry
> entirely after his business insurance topped $800,000/year with NO
> PREVIOUS MALPRACTICE CLAIMS.
>
> Like just about everything in the US, lawyers have found a way to
> steal a living off it.

Well, it's not the only thing needed. Demystification of what both
birth and death mean in terms of patient's rights would help, as would
sane policies about alternative care. So would sane policies about the
medical usages of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana, all of which have
significant clinical uses but are very difficult to get access to
because of ludicrous federal policy and the "war on some drugs"
political legacies. So would pro-active care for diabetics: more
generous funding for glucose test strips to help reduce or avoid the
need for amputation or optical surgery. So would a serious revamping
of medical patent law: the patents on human insulin, for example, led
to a huge and unnecessary switchover to a vastly more expensive and as
it turns out, mostly unnecessary human insulin because the old
manufacturing patents were expiring.

The list goes on and on.

I just posted an article on the implosion of the Canadian medical system
that comes from Canadian Press and quotes the President of the Canadian
Medical Association who describes Canada's medical system as
"unsustainable" and in a state of "implosion" and not serving the needs
of Canadians very well. She recommends bring private insurance into the mix.

BUT THE HEADLINE IS THIS---WHY ISN'T THE MAINSTREAM AMERICAN PRESS THAT
YOU TRUST REPORTING THIS?

I had to find this on Drudge.

In message <h6a5lv$2tl$[email protected]>, Bamboozled wrote:
> You seem to <SLAP>

If you dont like my poasts, dont read them

Public option works:
http://www.nupge.ca/node/2486



--
Proof of Americas 3rd world status:
http://www.ramusa.org/
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people
by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and
sudden usurpations.... The means of defense against foreign danger historically
have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
-James Madison

In message <h6btma$833$[email protected]>, Bamboozled wrote:
> I just posted an article on the implosion of the Canadian medical system
> that comes from Canadian Press and quotes the President of the Canadian
> Medical Association who describes Canada's medical system as
> "unsustainable" and in a state of "implosion" and not serving the needs
> of Canadians very well. She recommends bring private insurance into the mix.
>
> BUT THE HEADLINE IS THIS---WHY ISN'T THE MAINSTREAM AMERICAN PRESS THAT
> YOU TRUST REPORTING THIS?
>
> I had to find this on Drudge.

I bet you cry along with Glen Beck too...

^_^

--
Proof of Americas 3rd world status:
http://www.ramusa.org/
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people
by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and
sudden usurpations.... The means of defense against foreign danger historically
have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
-James Madison

Bamboozled wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> Hey, look! Another throwaway lobbyist email account!
>>
>> Do you cover your lawn with Astroturf, too, or only use that for fake
>> grass roots lobbying?
>
> Ad hominem attack--no substance.
and that differs from your OWN post?

oh please, do inform us!

Bamboozled <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have not heard one Townhall question on the issue of the President's
> prominent health care advisors who recommend rationing health care to
> the elderly, to the very young, and to the seriously handicapped. Here
> is a letter I wrote to Whitehouse.gov. I'll let you know if I get an
> answer.

> My letter:
> "Why do you have the following doctors as Special Health Care Policy
> Advisors if you do not plan to ration health care to seniors and the
> disabled?:

> Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, M.D.
> Dr. David Blumenthal, M.D.

> These two doctors are on record as recommending rationing of health care
> for the elderly, those with dementia and even young children.

OK, I'll byte. The tone of your posting suggests that these doctors'
"recommending rationing health care for ....", if not entirely false,
has been taken out of context or otherwise distorted. The question in
your letter seems highly loaded, designed to give you an answer you can
get all uptight about. You could have more courteously worded it
something like "Are you planning to reduce health care to seniors and
the disabled? If not, why have you appointed Dr. E. and Dr. B., who
are known to favour such a policy?"

> The opinions of these men are highly controversial in their profession
> and paint an ugly picture of the direction your administration may be
> considering.

That sounds like an unsupported ad homines smear.

It would have been helpful on these newsgroups, which are all
international, if you could have summarized these Doctors' opinions,
and given pointers to what you allege is their recommendations of
rationing, in a neutral and fair context.

> Add to this your recommendations to cut Medicare and Medicaid by hundred
> of billions of dollars while you deny that your health plan overhaul
> WILL NOT be paid with Medicare/Medicaid cuts, and you simply are not
> credible.

My impression is that you are just trying to create fear, uncertainty and
doubt about the USA's government's intended reforms, with the aim of
preventing them. This impression is reinforced by your anonymity.

> Please explain.

Yes. Please tell us all who you are. I don't need your name, address
and 'phone number, but it would help to know what your interest is in
all this. Do you live in the USA? Do you make money out of the current
health "system" in the USA, and if so, how? What's your political
background, your motivation?

> Supporting link: http: http://tinyurl.com/mbq3rc

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Tiger Lily wrote:
> Bamboozled wrote:
>> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>[snip]
>> Ad hominem attack--no substance.
> and that differs from your OWN post?

"bamboozled" expressed disagreement with policy recommendations
allegedly made by two doctors.

Nico apparently attempted to discredit "bamboozled"
without addressing the point "bamboozled" made.

I think there's a big difference.

--
Wes Groleau

"But, Professor! I didn't plagiarize! I paid someone to
write the essay for me, and that person plagiarized!"
-- from http://rateyourstudents.blogspot.com

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> OK, I'll byte. The tone of your posting suggests that these doctors'
> "recommending rationing health care for ....", if not entirely false,
> has been taken out of context or otherwise distorted. The question in
> your letter seems highly loaded, designed to give you an answer you can

Now _this_ is not an ad hominem attack. Thank you, Alan.

> My impression is that you are just trying to create fear, uncertainty and
> doubt about the USA's government's intended reforms, with the aim of
> preventing them. This impression is reinforced by your anonymity.

Ah, well, we're really all anonymous here, aren't we? Some of us
aren't trying to be, but you can't tell, can you? I might not be
Wes Groleau--that might just be part of a very successful attempt
at anonymity.

> and 'phone number, but it would help to know what your interest is in
> all this. Do you live in the USA? Do you make money out of the current
> health "system" in the USA, and if so, how? What's your political
> background, your motivation?

What difference does any of that make? First, it's pretty hard to
know whether the answer is a lie. Second, if someone makes money
out of something, that doesn't automatically make their comments on it
wrong. I know Guy would disagree...:-) And it doesn't automatically
make them right either.

--
Wes Groleau

Film Review: The Blue Butterfly
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1565

Wes Groleau <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> OK, I'll byte. The tone of your posting suggests that these doctors'
>> "recommending rationing health care for ....", if not entirely false,
>> has been taken out of context or otherwise distorted. The question in
>> your letter seems highly loaded, designed to give you an answer you can

> Now _this_ is not an ad hominem attack. Thank you, Alan.

My pleasure. :-)

>> My impression is that you are just trying to create fear, uncertainty
>> and doubt about the USA's government's intended reforms, with the aim
>> of preventing them. This impression is reinforced by your anonymity.

> Ah, well, we're really all anonymous here, aren't we? Some of us
> aren't trying to be, but you can't tell, can you? I might not be
> Wes Groleau--that might just be part of a very successful attempt
> at anonymity.

Yes, in a strict Proof-Beyond-Reasonable-Doubt sense, we're all
anonymous. But for the practical purposes of this newsgroup, we know
eachother. We can look at eachother's past posts, see consistent
attitudes, consistent points of view, consistent descriptions of our
problems to do with DM, and so on. "Wes Groleau" might be some fictional
personage created by whomever you really are, but why would you bother
doing this? Wes Groleau might not be your real name, but that wouldn't
bother me at all.

I'd quite happily meet Wes Groleau for an evening in the pub. I'd not be
happy meeting "Bamboozled" - She or he seems like a mendacious meddler,
somebody stirring up confusion and fear for his/her own purposes,
somebody who profits from the misery, poverty and death that the current
USA health "system" causes. If I'm wrong, Bamboozled, then tell us more
about yourself.

>> and 'phone number, but it would help to know what your interest is in
>> all this. Do you live in the USA? Do you make money out of the current
>> health "system" in the USA, and if so, how? What's your political
>> background, your motivation?

> What difference does any of that make? First, it's pretty hard to
> know whether the answer is a lie. Second, if someone makes money
> out of something, that doesn't automatically make their comments on it
> wrong. I know Guy would disagree...:-) And it doesn't automatically
> make them right either.

I disagree with you on these points. The sort of smart Alex that
"Bamboozled" seems to be doesn't like telling barefaced lies. They
revel in their own cleverness at twisting words and senses, they are
economical with the truth. But they fancy themselves superior to
bare-faced liars, and won't descend to that level. If s/he is making
money from the current system, it doesn't make his/her comments wrong,
but it has a massive influence on how we should evaluate them. These
comments would be both better informed and less disinterested than yours
or mine.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremeberg, Germany).