On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 18:19:08 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
1,000 days = 2.74 years.
4 year term -- 2.74 = 1.26 years (or 1 year 95 days shy of a full
term) so after 2/3's of his term in office with a Republican house and
Republican Senate the recession finally stopped it's contraction.
It was written above that:
http://www.eh.net/hmit/inflation/ ( which only goes to 2002)
Inflation rate 2000 = 3.38 %
Inflation rate 2001 = 2.86%
Inflation rate 2002 = 1.58%
Using these numbers alone for the 2000 - 2002 period a 2% wage growth
divided over 4 years = 0.5% per year.... minus a 2000 - 2002
inflation rate of 7.82% leaves a 6.32 % gap between earnings and
Just for fun looking back we get:
Inflation rate 1984 = 4.37 % (Regan Whitehouse)
Inflation rate 1990 = 5.39 % (Bush Sr Whitehouse)
Inflation rate 1991 = 4.22% (Bush Sr Whitehouse)
Inflation rate 1993 = 2.98% (Clinton Whitehouse)
Inflation rate 1998 = 1.51% (Clinton Whitehouse)
Inflation rate 1997 = 2.35 % (Clinton Whitehouse)
It would appear that, along with Whitehouse interns, inflation also
went down in the Clinton Whitehouse ;-)
Though, in truth inflation rates are really a smoke & mirror show as
I believe that some governments are even excluding some energy costs.
Has your fuel become more expensive in the past couple years??
So, if you're indigent then you won't have to pay (right now) any
income tax). Though I suppose if you've got nothing to pay with....
I do like these two lines:
The bulk of the message sounds pro-Bush. But the second one in
isolation almost sounds somewhat negative towards Bush Jr.
With regards to jobs lost/gained. Some might ask as to pay & benefit
levels of new jobs. I know that McDonalds & Walmart have hired quite
a few folks recently. Would those be better or worse than the
manufacturing jobs lost?
I'm not pro-Democrat (I'm not sure that Mrs. President Clinton was
either) and I'm not pro-Republican. But I do believe that the present
administration is heading down a wrong path. I really liked Bush Sr.
I'm not quite as keen on Jr. I liked Clinton (the man) but I'm not
sure that I like Kerry. I've yet to hear a clear plan from him on the
economy or how to control Iraq without American's on the ground there.
I'm concerned that as America narrows it's focuses onto Iraq, China
grows larger & more powerful by the day. America is turning into a
police state & China already is one.
We've gone from a balance of a Russian Dictatorship with an American
Democracy towards an American totalitarian state with a Chinese
totalitarian state as it's "balance". As much as you may dislike
Clinton at least he "accidentally" bombed a Chinese embassy spying on
the west. This administration seems hell bent upon shipping the
American production capacity to China while ignoring the pending
All quite puzzling to me
I don't know what the answer is for health care in the US but the current
system is broken. 5 years ago a study indicated that 100k people are being
killed every year by hospital mistakes. Hospitals promised to improve. The
results? A revised study now says the number is closer to 200k per year
being killed by hospital errors. Clearly the current "competitive"
environment for hospitals is not leading to good health care. If you need a
cite, check your last Sunday newspaper. Numbers were in People's Pharmacy
which is syndicated in most major newspapers.
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:54:37 +0100, "Dori A Schmetterling"
Watching the evening news and came across this which made me think of
your posting. Thought you might enjoy:
Sat. Sep. 4 2004 11:15 PM ET
Hospital didn't help ill people enter facility
CTV.ca News Staff
A British.Columbia Canadian. family believes their daughter died
because of hospital bureaucracy.
Two weeks ago, Jessica Peace -- a mother of one -- had a drug
reaction, stopped breathing and died in hospital.
Her uncle, Jim Roberts, took her to the Peace Arch hospital in White
Rock -- but not into the hospital. And he thinks she'd still be alive
if not for the delay in getting her emergency care.
"I honestly don't know why I didn't carry her in, but I thought when
you went to a hospital they helped you," he said.
When he arrived at the hospital, he left her in the car, ran inside
and begged for help.
"'My niece is in the car. She's not breathing. I need help,'" was his
recollection. "She says, 'I'm sorry sir, you'll have to call an
Roberts was handed a phone and the desk clerk dialed 9-1-1. "I said,
'that's crazy.' She said, 'that's our policy, sir.'"
The Peace Arch hospital insists it's not a policy, but that having
paramedics to assist is necessary sometimes. "Removing somebody from
an automobile and putting them on a stretcher, you need at least two
people to do that," said Don Bower of the Fraser Health Authority.
The hospital said a nurse eventually did go out and give Jessica CPR
while she was still in the car.
It agrees Roberts shouldn't have had to call for an ambulance himself
and it is investigating the matter -- the second such investigation in
just over a year.
In May 2003, an 88-year-old man died of cardiac arrest just outside
the hospital's doors. Even the RCMP complained it took to long to get
the victim help.
"It can't go on like this. More people are going to die," Roberts
said, adding, "it's not the first time something like this has
Lisa Trewern can vouch for that, saying, "the same thing happened to
me when I took my mom to the hospital on April 3."
She said her mother had severe abdominal pains. While her mother
survived, Trewern said she now regrets not having formally reported
the matter: "They weren't willing to help me until I got through the
Jessica Peace's family is considering legal action while they take
care of her son.
With a report from CTV's Sarah Galashan
If a Lawyer was called in April 3, would the two subsequent deaths
have been as likely?
Yes, but I am not sure if I 'enjoyed' reading about such sad incidents. In
fact, I learned recently that the distant relative was twice refused
treatment by the A&E (accident & emergency) dept of a Toronto hospital until
he practically crawled in in great pain...
It's taken me a while to reply as I was away...a week was in hospital...
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
I don't trust bulk statistics thrown out like that. There are too many
examples of groups with a vested interest in having the results come out
a certain way intentionally mishandling the numbers.
For example, statistics are often cited on how certain ethnic groups or
nationalities are predicted to be the voting majority (vs. "white"
Americans) in the U.S. by such and such a year in the near future. The
eye opener comes when you find out that the people putting the
statistics together count an individual who meets, say, two (or three)
of the criteria for being put into a certain group as two (or three)
people in that minority and not one, whereas each individual who meets
the criteria for the group that they want to intentionally undercount
(i.e. caucasians) are counted as one person. The people publishing the
results have a vested interest in cionvincing politicians and others to
cater to certain favored groups. It's one thing to report the truth of
what the reality is, but it is not acceptable to skew the results like
that to trick the public.
Similarly, they re-classified certain sets of symptoms and diseases as
AIDS (broadened the definition) to inflate the growth rate of AIDS cases
from year to year. Again - the rates of AIDS new AIDS cases were
changing, and indeed, maybe the criteria shoudl have been broadened, but
it is not right to report shifts in the numbers like that without making
it clear that the criteria were changed in teh numbers being compared -
IOW, if the criteria changed, then when statistical rate changes are
reported, they either need to be adjusted or normalized for the effects
of the change in criteria, or, at minimum, it needs to be stated that
the criteria changed from one statistic to the next so that people know
that they are not an apples to apples comparison - but that information
is **NEVER** disclosed when the numbers are thrown out to the public.
I am not saying that such sleight of hand techniques are the case with
the 100k hospital-caused deaths per year statistic increasing to 200k,
but knowing the politics of those pushing the "our medical system is
awful and therefore we need to go to socialized medicine" agenda, I am
very skeptical of the numbers that they throw out. What were the
criteria? Did the criteria change? Did reporting methods and accuracy
change to falsely skew the numbers (either over-reporting or
under-reporting on either end of the study? etc., etc....
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
Hospitals certainly have a financial interest in disputing the numbers and
the financial strength to do their own analysis. But to my knowledge they
have not done so. Therefore, presumably the nunmbers are accurate.
On 24 Aug 2004 08:31:55 -0700, geoff email@example.com (Geoff
Wow. I would like to have those things to but who among us still
does? My insurance demands that I go to a primary care Dr. and I have
to convince him there is a problem before I am allowed to go to
another Dr. I'm only allowed to go to one hospital chain even though
there are several that are better. And I'm one of the fortuante ones
My out of pocket expenses have gone from $50 per hospital visit to
$2000 per visit. No more prescription drugs coverage and the cost
have almost doubled. It's not my employer... they provide the info on
what health care was costing and what it would cost to maintain the
same level of service along with a note apologizing and explaining
that they just can't afford to maintain the previous coverage levels.
What about those who can't afford insurance? What about those that
have to choose between drugs and food? What about the unemployed whos
family COBRA coverage cost them half a months unemployment check?
And why is it that the government can't afford to help the working
poor in this country with health care but they will happily pay
thousands per month for facilities full of drooling babbling shells
that used to be people?
I don't know what the answer is but I'm willing to give socialized
medicine a try. If healthcare continues on its current path I can't
see myself having insurance in another couple of years and that scares
me to no end,.
There are plenty of countries around with socialized systems for you to
assess without making an irreversible change here only to find that
there are worse systems. Rather than risk ruining what admittedly is
less than an ideal system, try one that has already made the change to
socialism to see how you like it. That would be better than destroying
what we have only to discover that there are much worse systems. Once
the change is made, there is never any going back because, as a society,
the climb out of the hole is too great once you fall into it (kind of
like an addict who can't live with the drugs and can't live without
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:37:39 GMT, Steve B. <this is not my real
I think that some people's argument will be that it is impossible to
"reduce the service level" for people with no service to begin with.
You've gotta get the Mrs working for either a Gov't agency or a
pharaceutical company. Their plans are the world health care dream.
My Brother in law pays $200.00 per month for a family of 6, MD's? his
choice, MRI's? no more than 5 hours wait and no additional, drug
coverage? 100% This is the Healthcare that everyone wants to have.
But then again he's got his post grad & hasn't been unemployed or
What is a better question is why they spend tens of thousands locking
up idiots who sell dope to each other. Out on the streets they could
never afford health or dental care, but in the pen? You're paying for
it ! Plus the cost of prison runs somewhere between $15 & $40 K per
year per person. I know, not really all that much, but when you
look at the levels of the US incarceration it begins to add up.
The best thing you can do for your health in the interim is:
A) wear your seatbelt.
B) Keep your weight within the ideal range
BUT most importantly.
C) Have a strong social network. (that way if you do lose insurance
you'll have people to pressure those in power to guarantee your care).
For a thought, have you tried to join an automotive newsgroup? ;-)
PS the last one wasn't to play down the significance of what you wrote
(it is usually an important election issue) but to try to bring a
smile. Stress will make you ill.
Here's something from alt.jokes for everyone's weekday smile:
A car company can move its factories to Mexico and claim it's a free
A toy company can outsource to a Chinese subcontractor and claim it's
a free market.
A major bank can incorporate in Bermuda to avoid taxes and claim it's
a free market.
We can buy HP Printers made in Mexico.
We can buy shirts made in Bangladesh.
We can purchase almost anything we want from many different countries
heaven help the elderly who dare to buy their prescription drugs from
a Canadian (Or Mexico) pharmacy. That's called un-American!
And you think the pharmaceutical companies don't have a powerful
lobby? Think again!
Have a great week everybody, Get out & enjoy your car !
I will say problem #1 with drug costs is the unregulated increase in prices
for drugs. Sure it costs millions and millions to come up with a drug and
get it approved by the FDA... but they get 7 years to make their money back
on it... most big hit drugs they make their R&D money back within the first
year. Its not til a generic comes out that the price can drop. But that is
7 years down the road. Next time you go to the pharmacy to get your top of
the line drug.. ask what the cash cost is for a customer. Most are
astonishing. Granted this is a free market economy, but drugs shouldn't be
able to be hiked that much. Also doctors keep charging more and more
because they want to be paid more. Not that I am saying a doctor doesn't
deserve a decent paycheck, he does, especially the guy that is supposed to
be removing the lump on your kidney/liver/pancreas/ovary/testicle and you
want him to make sure he does it right. But there is a limit to making good
money and causing your patients to go broke. Of course... I will stop there
and say this... a big portion of what they charge (the doctors) is to pay
for the outrageous insurance premiums they must carry to protect themselves
from malpractice... cause its amazing how much they have to pay. Its not
just the doctor that left the scalpel in your abdomen on accident. Its the
doctor that didn't order one test and you got sick from the thing that test
would have tested for and now you sue him for millions of dollars. Its the
reckless abandon that people in the U.S. (and I believe spreading across
Europe) to sue someone for anything. There are many diseases and almost as
many tests to check for them. It shouldn't be required for a doctor to HAVE
to order all those tests in fear that he might miss one and you become sick
and sue him. The legal system is the first step for reform, and then slowly
reform the medical society. If anyone wants some good reading on such
issues... check out
"The Death of Common Sense" by Philip K. Howard
"The Collapse of Common Good" by Philip K. Howard
Both are very good books, definately a slight eye opener for some and
solidation of ideas for others.
What you fail to understand is the tort system is part of the solution.
When businesses are sued, or realize that they might be sued, they tend to
get better.... more efficient and safer. That has not happened in the
medical profession. Over 100k patients are being killed every year in
hospitals due to medical mistakes and the trend is apparently getting worse
according to the newest figures. Arguably the system needs more lawsuits,
not fewer, to encourage the hospitals to clean up their act and to become
more efficient. That, my friend, is capitalism without the need of
I just thought that I'd butt in here. I'm possibly going to be a doctor. Do
you know how much liability insurance is for them? Anywhere from 53k a year
on up to around 300k (http://www.acep.org/1,32158,0.html ). How about you try
dealing with the human body? Next time you're sick don't go to a doctor,
figure it out on your own and figure out the way to take care of it.
These are people that go to school for around 8 years, give or take a few.
When they're done on average they have around 100k in student loans. Then
they go to internships where they're "only" supposed to work 80 hours a
week, yet some hospitals make them work more. Many times they're going in
for 120 to 140 hours a week. So help me out here, why should I work so hard
to become a doctor if I'm just going to get my ass sued off?
Simple. Because through all of your hard work and study, people sharing
Art's political philosophy (roughly: "you've got more than me, so hand
it over") stand to get rich. They want to piggyback off your efforts
in order to make up for their own shortcomings. They'll use class envy and
trumped up media coverage to do so, because, after all, a perfect
outcome should be within reach of every physician in every circumstance.
(I must caution you, though, that if you're too successful as a
physician, you'll likely contribute to that other Big Social Problem:
the overwhelmingly large population of the aged, for which the only
prescribed remedy will be yet another form of socialism. Don't say you
Personally, I hope that somebody like you who's bright enough to see the
pitfalls continues on to become a medical doctor. You'll likely have to
put up with idiots bemoaning your high pay and tolerate punitive
insurance premiums, but good people are needed in the medical
Best of luck.
So tell your fellow professionals not to screw up and insurance rates will
go down. But instead you want government regulation. That is what I love
about rightwingers. No government regulation allowed except to screw
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.