O/T: Amazing

" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

That's a rather biblical remark (that's a denigrating term here). If the parents are too stupid or drunk to take care of their housing, why do their children have to suffer? (Remember, I'm a tax and spend liberal - I believe the fire should have been put out and the parents made to pay, tax or whip).

It's getting late, sorry if I offend.

They shouldn't. The children should be taken out of the home and put into a home where they will be treated as children should be. Then the parents should be thrown in prison for child abuse. Simple. If you want to do something more appropriate to the abusers, we can discuss that too.

This is the Usenet. If that's the most offensive you can be, you don't stand a chance. ;-)

To fix the "problem", first you have to take away the homeless' right to live as they wish.

You need a different primary care doctor!

I can get an appointment with my internist usually for the next day. If I just drop in to his office, he'll see me within the next two hours. Maybe briefly, but he'll see me.

Now I don't abuse the privilege and I take him and his office staff little gifts (a book for him, a HUGE box of chocolates for the staff on Valentine's day...).

My view is that I can pay a doctor for his professional services, but I can't pay him to actually, you know, CARE. The latter is accomplished (hopefully) by treating him as I would a friend.

But bad drug interactions and mistakes are not DELIBERATE.

That's the difference I was trying to demonstrate.

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:18:33 -0500, "HeyBub"

Of course, it always makes sense to develop a friendship with your doctor.

I don't know what it's like down in the US, but up here in Canada, there are areas that are under served by doctors and some people have a great deal of trouble finding one that will take them on as regular clients. Guess that's part and parcel of living away from the cities.

Or unfix the fix from a few years ago. Many people were in institutions, but that was deemed harsh and an infringement on rights. It was for some, but others were incapable of caring for themselves and found a worse fate

What sort of doctor do you go to, who is able to treat a cold better than you can yourself with OTC remedies?

You raise a good point.

In Texas, it is claimed that medical tort reform saved the state from a medical crisis. Before 2003, when the reforms were put in place, Texas ranked 49th out of 50 in physicians-to-population ratio.

"... in the decade from 2002 to 2012, the Texas population went from

At the micro level, ten counties in the state (out of 254) now have at least one obstetrician where before the reform regimen was instituted, they had none.

"HeyBub" wrote in news:KbudnfLmtJDkr2nSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

I googled "Texas medical tort reform", and this came up, saying the effect of this "reform" was nil.

I had hoped to find some better result, because I think tort reform, combined with more punishment of offending doctors, hospitals etc, should help lowering costs ...

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:45:45 -0600, Just Wondering wrote (in article ):

I was thinking of something that requires a prescription (i.e. antibiotics) and ergo, an office visit.

I'm fortunate in that I've only been to the doctor twice in the past 30 years for blood test followups. At work we get biannual 'clinics' where they do basic blood tests and check basic health parameters.

-Bruce

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:17:23 -0600, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote (in article ):

Agreed! From what I understand of some medicaids however is that it would cap that co-pay.....

Advantage in the sense that if you are at the low end of the food chain (government subsidized), you get to play the system without fear of losing anything.

-BR

Lawyers write the laws, lobbyist' tell them what to say, and politicians go to the bank.

That's the "fix" I was referring to when I said "take away the homeless' right to live as they wish".

One idea I heard the other day (sorry, don't remember where) was a Constitutional amendment allowing Congress, with a supermajority, to overrule SCotUS decisions within a set amount of time (say, one year).

OK, but that is not a cold. Antibiotics are a wonderful thing, but often over prescribed to make a patient happy even if it does no good.

Swingman wrote in news:1OmdnSCkKu2S0WnSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

I am a cynic too, but I do believe in the power of social media ...

Ed Pawlowski wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Can't the Congresscritters do that now? They can pass a bill that revokes whatever the Supremes have said. If it becomes law, that should have the same effect, unless the law is declared unconstitutional.