Where Are the Innovators in Health Care?

[Pure]

have a look at the world, rox;

We will never ban private health care like Canada

P: it seems you aren't very well acquainted with Canada, and I've seen no evidence of familiarity with other countries' systems.

as to one of your points:

rox Government run systems don't create that supply-increasing dynamic. They take as a given current supply at a certain level of spending - 8 percent of GDP, 17 percent, whatever - and proceed to ration it in "one size fits none" solutions.

Americans will never stand for that model, and imposing it here would be a disaster

P: I believe LovingT characterized this sort of this approach: straw man: it's a supposedly clever rebuttal to a position not held by anyone.
you attempt to have the buzz words "rationing" and "one size fits none"
do the heavy lifting in your "argument." again, youre not working from reality but from an imaginary rightwing world where the masses always hate socialism. the alleged "one size fits none" systems are approved by all major political parties (left and non-crazy right) in at least a dozen countries.

rox "Americans would never stand for that model."

P: The bogeyman you made up, IOW.

As to the general point: Americans wouldn't stand for Saddam remaining in power or for civil liberties; most go the way they're manipulated, for some time. As more see they're the ONLY wealthy Western country with crappy healthcare for the majority, maybe they'll start waking up and check out how the problem was solved 50 years back.

PS. It might be pointed out that at least one *state* has started rationally addressing the problem, e.g. Massachusetts, but i'm sure you have refutations of these facts too. ("people are so unhappy there, they're fleeing Massachussetts in droves, headed for Texas.")

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

We will never ban private health care like Canada

it seems you aren't very well acquainted with Canada, and I've seen no evidence of familiarity with other countries' systems.

as to one of your points:

rox Government run systems don't create that supply-increasing dynamic. They take as a given current supply at a certain level of spending - 8 percent of GDP, 17 percent, whatever - and proceed to ration it in "one size fits none" solutions.

Americans will never stand for that model, and imposing it here would be a disaster

I believe LovingT characterized this sort of this approach: straw man: it's a supposedly clever rebuttal to a position not held by anyone.
you attempt to have the buzz words "rationing" and "one size fits none"
do the heavy lifting in your "argument." again, youre not working from reality but from an imaginary rightwing world where the masses always hate socialism. the alleged "one size fits none" systems are approved by all major political parties (left and non-crazy right) in at least a dozen countries.

"Americans would never stand for that model."

Americans wouldn't stand for Saddam remaining in power or for civil liberties; most go the way they're manipulated, for some time. As more see they're the ONLY wealthy Western country with crappy healthcare for the majority, maybe they'll start waking up and check out how the problem was solved 50 years back.

Not surprisingly, you have failed to engage any of the points I made, but simply threw mud at them. And threw out your own strawmen.

"Rationing" is not a buzz word. It's a perfectly accurate description of systems that allocate a limited quantity of a good according to a bureucratically devised formula - overt rationing - and also of ones that limit goods in other non-voluntary ways - covert rationing.

More broadly, "rationing" accurately describes all health care systems -and economic systems in general - because of the existential reality that supply is scarce, and the human reality that demand is infinite. In socialist systems the allocation decisions are not left to individuals but are made by bureaucrats and politicians. In free market systems the allocation choices are made by consumers, as individuals and in the aggregate.

This leads to various inequalities which we accept for most goods (only the rich can regularly buy caviar and Dom Perignon) but do not accept beyond a certain limit in other goods (we provide food stamps). In the area of health care we do not accept inequality beyond superficial things (we accept that the rich can pay for private hospital rooms but won't accept excluding the poor from the life-saving treatments available to the rich).

 

[Pure]

In socialist systems the allocation decisions are not left to individuals** but are made by bureaucrats and politicians. In free market systems the allocation choices are made by consumers, as individuals and in the aggregate.

these two sentences contain so many falsehoods and stereotypes it's hard to know where to begin. i presume your second sentence is talking about ideal--i.e. imaginary-- systems as conjured up by Ms. Rand.
as far as i can see it doesn't apply to any existing economic systems of the developed world in this century.

because it's false [as characterizing the US], that's why there is the thread topic, my friend.

please note too, that rather than discuss health care *as it exists*, i.e. in reality, you've moved the debate to "socialist bogeymen or free market saviors", i.e. an entirely abstract level.
===

** it appears you're not familiar with something called *voting*--done by individuals--, which exists in England, France, etc. i suppose they're sham democracies as with 'votes' held under Stalinism.

 

[gauchecritic]

This leads to various inequalities which we accept for most goods (only the rich can regularly buy caviar and Dom Perignon) but do not accept beyond a certain limit in other goods (we provide food stamps). In the area of health care we do not accept inequality beyond superficial things (we accept that the rich can pay for private hospital rooms but won't accept excluding the poor from the life-saving treatments available to the rich).

Which is precisely where the conservative right are most indulgently wrong and wrongheaded. Just as long as those with money can afford the best everyone else, no matter their skills or worth, has to make do with less.

Why can you not see this? and further; what (apart from greed and profit) gives anyone apparent superiority to anyone else?

The essence of good government is the ability to respond to change and not to obviate that ability by not changing.

The essence of a good electorate is to always, at every turn, challenge the status quo. Why then must we accept what we are given?

 

[R. Richard]

But, of course, you live an absolutely perfect life, health-wise, right?

As a matter of fact, I work out seven days a week. I mix resistance workouts, endurance workouts and kung-fu balance and agility workouts. I eat healthy foods and also use supplements, so that I get my full requirements for protein, vitamins and minerals. I make sure that I keep hydrated during my workouts [especially during the summer,] so that I am not overstressing my body due to fuild deficiency. I generally limit my drinking to a beer after my workout. Beer has both salts and sugars, as well as carbs and even a little protein so that it not only rehydrates me, but also does not shock my system after a workout. The rather small amount of alcohol should not really be a problem, as alcohol is the body's first food of choice and probably is immediately put to work rebuilding where my workouts tore down a little.

I wouldn't say that I live an absolutely perfect life, health-wise, but I am not too far away from the goal.

Comments?

 

[R. Richard]

i
provision of health care is reasonably well solved in a number of countries

Pure, I would disagree. In Canada, there are very frequently long waits for medical care under the current Canadian governemnt system. Many Canadians who can afford to do so, come to the US for at least some medical care, rather than wait months for free Canadian medical care. Of course, if you can wait, Canada's medical care is free for Canadians.

I was acquainted with a Canadian lady who had terrible side effects from the only drug that Canada provides for treatment of her condition. Fortunately, she had money and came to the US to get an 'identical' drug from another manufacturer. The 'identical' drug did not cause the side effects.

I recall that Og, who lives in England, has private health insurance that he regards
as superior to the free NHS medical care.

 

[gauchecritic]

I recall that Og, who lives in England, has private health insurance that he regards
as superior to the free NHS medical care.

Staffed by doctors and nurses trained in NHS hospitals.

Wadda ya know. Surgeons moonlighting in a private hospital and increasing waiting times at NHS hospitals. Good system for those with the money.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

As a matter of fact, I work out seven days a week. I mix resistance workouts, endurance workouts and kung-fu balance and agility workouts. I eat healthy foods and also use supplements, so that I get my full requirements for protein, vitamins and minerals. I make sure that I keep hydrated during my workouts [especially during the summer,] so that I am not overstressing my body due to fuild deficiency. I generally limit my drinking to a beer after my workout. Beer has both salts and sugars, as well as carbs and even a little protein so that it not only rehydrates me, but also does not shock my system after a workout. The rather small amount of alcohol should not really be a problem, as alcohol is the body's first food of choice and probably is immediately put to work rebuilding where my workouts tore down a little.

I wouldn't say that I live an absolutely perfect life, health-wise, but I am not too far away from the goal.

Comments?

Your time will come.

If you're lucky you will drop dead at a ripe old age of something quick and painless. Or get hit by a truck. But it's all a lottery. Healthy habits increase your odds in some ways, but are no exemption. God forbid, but you or anyone of us could get a nasty form of cancer at any moment. It might be the kind that is cureable with $200,000 in treatments. You'll pauperize yourself and head down to the Medicaid office like all the rest when that happens.

 

[Pure]

hi rr,
if we're going by anecdotal evidence,
in canada, i've been reasonably well served by the system, including a couple major surgeries conducted in a timely manner.

what you forget is that the problem of tweaking a social democratice healthcare system is NOT the sort of thing that rox like to talk about. this is what people want in most western countries, just like tweaks in the legal system, e.g. faster trials.

rox, with her idol mr murray, wants--so to say-- to recommend "the plan" to a bunch of people who aren't interested. her 'solution' is not addressed to what people think is the problem.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Which is precisely where the conservative right are most indulgently wrong and wrongheaded. Just as long as those with money can afford the best everyone else, no matter their skills or worth, has to make do with less.

Why can you not see this? and further; what (apart from greed and profit) gives anyone apparent superiority to anyone else?

The essence of good government is the ability to respond to change and not to obviate that ability by not changing.

The essence of a good electorate is to always, at every turn, challenge the status quo. Why then must we accept what we are given?

In the socialist worldview:
Justice = Equality of Condition.
The size of the "pie" is fixed, so the only issue is how to divide it.

Both of these are false. Solutions to social problems premised on them do not work (at best).

Extreme inequality in condition (pauperism) is not accepted in modern societies. The extreme right denies this, while solutions to this inevitably engage the issue of moral hazard, which the left ignores or pretends does not exist.

Limiting differences in opportunity that are not based on individual characteristics and character is a worthy goal. It must be balanced against not interfering excessively with socially beneficial economic incentives to work, study, save and take risks. One of those incentives is the opportunity to make a pile and pass it on to your children as an inheritance or in other ways that improve their opportunities in life.

There are three existential realities:
Scarcity.
Humans are self interested beings (they pursue the well being of their families first).
Every human is different in his or her abilities, character, skills, desires, needs, etc.

The most successful economic systems are ones that reconcile these in an "Adam Smith" manner wherein, by pursuing his own self interest, each person inevitably benefits the entire society. Bill Gates is an shining example of this. (For all our complaints about windows, we are communicating in this way because he established a standard disk operating system.)

 

[Pure]

The most successful economic systems are ones that reconcile these in an "Adam Smith" manner wherein, by pursuing his own self interest, each person inevitably benefits the entire society.

reality, roxanne. "laisser faire", whatever its virtues in theory (a bit like communism), does not exist in any developed western country. hence the alleged harmony of private and public benefit, the so called 'invisible hand' is not an accurate characterization of any of these countries' systems.

the most successful systems are mixed, with portions operating vaguely in the manner you describe, and portions controlled or directed by the government, which is, in turn, reponsible to the people.

as to the US system of cartels, purchase of the legislators by private interests, etc. this could scarcely be called a 'laissez faire' capitalist system; it's a state sponsored, cronyish capitalism, where Cheney as VP directs business to his former company Halliburton, without bids.
i'd think this is a rather "visible hand".

===
Rox: In the socialist worldview:
Justice = Equality of Condition.
The size of the "pie" is fixed, so the only issue is how to divide it.


rox, do us a favor. don't treat your readers as if they're kindergartners ready to absorb some Human-Events-style lesson on political systems and America the Beautiful.

 

[R. Richard]

Staffed by doctors and nurses trained in NHS hospitals.

Wadda ya know. Surgeons moonlighting in a private hospital and increasing waiting times at NHS hospitals. Good system for those with the money.

Perhaps you would prefer that the doctors and nurses moonlight for NHS at no pay? Get real.

The rich will always get better medical care than the poor. Water will always run downhill.

 

[R. Richard]

Your time will come.

If you're lucky you will drop dead at a ripe old age of something quick and painless. Or get hit by a truck. But it's all a lottery. Healthy habits increase your odds in some ways, but are no exemption. God forbid, but you or anyone of us could get a nasty form of cancer at any moment. It might be the kind that is cureable with $200,000 in treatments. You'll pauperize yourself and head down to the Medicaid office like all the rest when that happens.

Actually, I have a premonition. I will die, at age 125, of a gunshot wound, caught in the act by a jealous husband just after I satisfy his 18-year-old nymphomanic wife. My actual cause of death will be drowning in a vat of Wild Turkey after I fall off the bed.

 

[R. Richard]

hi rr,
if we're going by anecdotal evidence,
in canada, i've been reasonably well served by the system, including a couple major surgeries conducted in a timely manner.

It is my understanding that the current wait for a CAT scan in Canada is over six months. True or false?

 

[S-Des]

It is my understanding that the current wait for a CAT scan in Canada is over six months. True or false?

This is the big question. I can recite dozens of horror stories I've heard about Canada or England. The question is, are they made-up, the exceptions to the rule, or all too common? Pure, as a person who actually lives in Canada, you could give us the details of your experiences (or those with whom you're aquainted). You could give us some facts to show the differences between our system. I live in the real world. If I get sick, there are 15 places I can go in a 10 mile radius at a moment's notice. I don't like how much they cost, but they are here. I've had emergency treatment I couldn't afford in the past, and was taken care of, then worked on a repayment plan with the hospital. There are no waiting lines here, so that seems to be one advantage of how things are done. Although the cost can be prohibitive (my dad wiped out much of his life's earnings on hospital stays at the end of his life, despite excellent medical coverage), this isn't the only place.

I'll refrain from copying the story of the woman in England who's sold everything to pay for medical that the government refuses to treat her with. I won't bore you with the story of a dozen or so Canadians sent to a US treatment facility for addiction (because Canada is so understaffed), then after months of care were told the government had changed it's policies and refused to pay (gee, sound familiar?). The point is, we can swap horror stories all day, and still not understand other systems any better. We can offer platitudes, and reach the same spot. How about a little practical application and a few facts, so people who actually want to hear about it can do so?

 

[Pure]

those are good points, s des. anecdotes, esp. chosen by those with an ax to grind do not prove much of anything.

You could give us some facts to show the differences between our system. I live in the real world. If I get sick, there are 15 places I can go in a 10 mile radius at a moment's notice. I don't like how much they cost, but they are here. I've had emergency treatment I couldn't afford in the past, and was taken care of, then worked on a repayment plan with the hospital.

there is a shortage of gp's, but i've had the same ones for decades. aside from that, it's a choice of drs. and hospitals. to see a specialist takes a referral, but the gp will let me choose from his list, or even supply a name myself.

in toronto, there are half a dozen major huge hospitals and several dozen smaller ones. when my wife became ill, i chose one, the Jewish one, to go to, and she's gone there for follow up. regardless of where one goes for emergency, there is no charge. my most serious emergency a couple decades back, was peritonitis, and it required a month. there was no charge (had it been a private room, there would have been a surcharge.) two years ago, i had a gall bladder removal, which took a few months to happen, but it wasn't an emergency. i was out of pocket about $50 iirc.

much of the 'rationing' roxanne like to take about is better called 'triage'; separating the most urgent cases from the less and so on. the wait for such things a hip replacement, which i gather could be a couple years, is due to this: most candidates are NOT in a desperately or even moderately urgent situation.

there are some private clinics, as for (elective) eye surgery (no more glasses!) and plastic surgery; these run pretty much on a "free market" system; not much wait, just keep your checkbook handy.

==
in case you're interested in how drs get paid, there is an agreed schedule between the physicians and the government, so for my gall bladder, the surgeon is to get X dollars [i'm guessing, say, $ 500], the anesthetist Y, etc. so drs submit itemized lists of patients seen and services rendered. then monthly, the provincial gov issues a cheque.
there is a slight problem with 'assembly line,' since speed pays. i remember one ophthalmologist who had a roomful of waiting people.
if each specialist exam yielded, say $25, and he could see 10 per hour, that is not bad pay--i.e., gross $500,000 per year.

a quick office visit to a gp might yield, say, $10. but then again the dr. only spent 5 mins. // at the private clinics the drs are outside the system, so they set their price: 'facelift, $3000, will that be visa or mastercard?'

 

[R. Richard]

I can't answer the questions SDes raised. However, I did find this site with figures from 1991.

http://www.ncpa.org/w/w60.html

I also found an ad offering Canadians CAT scans in Buffalo, NY. Why would they offer Canadians CAT scans in Buffalo, NY if Canada offers then for free?

 

[WRJames]

As a matter of fact, I work out seven days a week. I mix resistance workouts, endurance workouts and kung-fu balance and agility workouts. I eat healthy foods and also use supplements, so that I get my full requirements for protein, vitamins and minerals. I make sure that I keep hydrated during my workouts [especially during the summer,] so that I am not overstressing my body due to fuild deficiency. I generally limit my drinking to a beer after my workout. Beer has both salts and sugars, as well as carbs and even a little protein so that it not only rehydrates me, but also does not shock my system after a workout. The rather small amount of alcohol should not really be a problem, as alcohol is the body's first food of choice and probably is immediately put to work rebuilding where my workouts tore down a little.

I wouldn't say that I live an absolutely perfect life, health-wise, but I am not too far away from the goal.

Comments?

Well, at one point in my perfectly healthy regimen I managed to rip apart the tendon that holds the front of the thigh to the knee (the quadriceps tendon) -- and I have no idea what the total cost was to repair it, but it was tens of thousands of dollars, I'm sure. And, my father led a perfectly healthy life which allowed his body to outlive his mind by several years -- not a pretty sight, and also one that involved a lot of expense. Actually, the cheapest people from a health care perspective are the ones who are completely unhealthy in their life style and manage to kill themselves off cleanly with a massive heart attack.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I've heard (but don't know for certain) that CAT scan machines are extremely scarce in Canada, and access is therefore strictly rationed (in the form of waiting lists).

They have become very common here, and the price of a scan has fallen dramatically. In 1991 I needed one to sort out a pinched nerve in my neck. It cost $900. A friend just got one for a knee problem - it was $700. With inflation that's like less than half the cost.

We both got our scans within a day or two. In my case it clearly showed what had happened, and allowed the MD to solve my problem and the acute pain that accompanied it with a simple home traction device - in a week I was fixed. Without the CAT scan, diagnosis would have been pure guesswork, and probably required surgery. Without being able to get it quickly, I would have had to suffer very serious pain for weeks or months.

 

[Pure]

i think roxanne is giving an example which perfectly illustrates her contention that people in the US have an infinitely great demand for healthcare.

---
i fail to see why, given this assumption, she doesn't see that given finite health dollars, either the healthcare management folks--Kaiser Permanente--[or the insurance companies] "ration" [assign and apportion] services, or the elected government does. to her it's obvious that privately rationed care is superior.

i suppose it's the ole 'invisible hand'; what's good for Kaiser is good for the client and good for the country. repeat 9 times while thumbing the Objectivist beads before bedtime.

 

[S-Des]

there is a shortage of gp's, but i've had the same ones for decades. aside from that, it's a choice of drs. and hospitals. to see a specialist takes a referral, but the gp will let me choose from his list, or even supply a name myself.

in toronto, there are half a dozen major huge hospitals and several dozen smaller ones. when my wife became ill, i chose one, the Jewish one, to go to, and she's gone there for follow up. regardless of where one goes for emergency, there is no charge. my most serious emergency a couple decades back, was peritonitis, and it required a month. there was no charge (had it been a private room, there would have been a surcharge.) two years ago, i had a gall bladder removal, which took a few months to happen, but it wasn't an emergency. i was out of pocket about $50 iirc.

much of the 'rationing' roxanne like to take about is better called 'triage'; separating the most urgent cases from the less and so on. the wait for such things a hip replacement, which i gather could be a couple years, is due to this: most candidates are NOT in a desperately or even moderately urgent situation.

there are some private clinics, as for (elective) eye surgery (no more glasses!) and plastic surgery; these run pretty much on a "free market" system; not much wait, just keep your checkbook handy.

==
in case you're interested in how drs get paid, there is an agreed schedule between the physicians and the government, so for my gall bladder, the surgeon is to get X dollars [i'm guessing, say, $ 500], the anesthetist Y, etc. so drs submit itemized lists of patients seen and services rendered. a quick office visit might yield, say, $10. but then again the dr. only spent 5 mins. // at the private clinics the drs are outside the system, so they set their price: 'facelift, $3000, will that be visa or mastercard?'

That sounds similar (remotely) to what the VA hospitals do. My dad was a Korean war vet and had much of his care handled by Hines. When I first visited him, I was horrified because it didn't look like a "real" hospital (i.e. large rooms with 4 patients, not enough staffing, not pristine, etc . . . ). After my trips became routine, I realized that some of the niceties were lacking, but the level of care was good (although definitely less than a hospital with a private room). It saved him at least $100,000 (he had diabetes, heart issues, & lung problems from being a welder), and he was appreciative of the dedication of the staff and volunteers.

To me, that's the potential model. Hospitals that make it with less staffing, adequate (but not pretty) amenities, and some willingness to compromise by the patients. It was attached to Loyola (which is a very well-known hospital), and many of the doctors were required to do part of their residency at Hines. From what I saw, they did a great job without the kind of budget you'd need in a private hospital. I'd like to believe in Rox's example of clinics opening in Wal-Mart (just for convenience & economics), but I don't think it will work (maybe for a while, but it'll be doomed in the long run). When it comes to catastrophic health care (like my father's), there is no model. As has been said, there is no such thing as "enough" health care. In my lifetime, I'll earn around $1,200,000-$1,500,000. If I have the kind of problems my father did (or my mother who twice battled cancer), I could easily use half of that amount if I refused to settle for less. Add in my grandmother's experience (10 years in a nursing home), and I'd pretty much spend more on medical than I contributed to the economy. I don't care what model you use or how much you take from the rich, it would not be possible to do that for everyone.

 

[Pure]

you illustrate my point, s des. if demand is infinite, someone or some entity is going to apportion the services rendered. "rationing" is a term rox likes to apply to socialist schemes, where[a]s the general phenemenon is universal given finite resources. the "free market" is an approach that insures that the richest are "rationed" exactly what they want (e.g. in catastrophic care) and the middle class sell their houses, and the poor are fuck out of luck. roxanne likes this because it's impersonal and in a sense 'rational'* it's called "wondrous workings of the free market", not "rationing."

*each person gets what they deserve, and it's well known that the rich work 100 times harder than the poor.

 

[S-Des]

you illustrate my point, s des. if demand is infinite, someone or some entity is going to apportion the services rendered. "rationing" is a term rox likes to apply to socialist schemes, wheres the general phenemenon is universal given finite resources. the "free market" is an approach that insures that the richest are "rationed" exactly what they want (e.g. in catastrophic care) and the middle class sell their houses, and the poor are fuck out of luck. roxanne like this because it's impersonal and in a sense 'rational.' it's called "wondrous workings of the free market", not "rationing."

I agree that the government would have to "ration" (or whatever term would work the best). It's no different from what insurance companies have to do, other than the level of greed that gets in the way of people's care (actually, there's just as much greed in government, but it isn't in the same places). That's why I'm more interested in reducing costs and alternatives than in a complete overhaul of the system. I'd also be good with prosecution of insurance company executives who intentionally refused service they were supposed to cover. Add into that limits on lawsuits and (especially) limits on what personal injury attorneys can make, and you have my full attention.

The original question of the thread was about innovation in the industry. If you believe that Canada's model (or England, France, or other) would be the best answer, OK but it will take an enormous sales job to sell it to the American people (and it will require a miracle to get it through our corrupt government without every politician finding a way to appoint their brother/sister/mother/child to a supervisory role). In the meantime, I'd like to see innovation within the current system so it could help people today. I know that Kiten wanted to become a nurse, but getting the education was difficult where she lived because the limited classes were full. We have a nursing shortage, but we don't want to let too many people become nurses? As I suggested before, how about a school supported by the government that turns out people who will work for government clinics, rather than seek employment on their own (and for this sacrifice, they get a free education). Maybe doctors who will give a reduced rate to people who pay cash at the time of their visit, or who sign a waiver refusing to sue? There has to be some ways to make a regular doctor visit (for a cold, stitches, check-up, etc...) that doesn't mean you'll have to skip a car payment or two.

 

[WRJames]

As I suggested before, how about a school supported by the government that turns out people who will work for government clinics, rather than seek employment on their own (and for this sacrifice, they get a free education). Maybe doctors who will give a reduced rate to people who pay cash at the time of their visit, or who sign a waiver refusing to sue? There has to be some ways to make a regular doctor visit (for a cold, stitches, check-up, etc...) that doesn't mean you'll have to skip a car payment or two.

It doesn't seem to me that most routine health care requires a full blown doctor -- and in fact, much of it is done by nurses or other practicioner under a doctor's supervision. Do we even need a doctor actually in the office, or could we automate this even more? I know that diagnosis workboosk were prepared for use in Africa that were very impressive -- why not have a more sophisticated program like that were a less skilled (and less expensive) tech could do the basic tests, feed the results into an application, and perhaps try a first treatment based on that?

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Roxanne Appleby]LT, welcome to the debates.

As you have noted, two individuals here apparenlty lack the self control needed to maintain civil, ad hominem insult-free discourse. This does not mean that you have to descend to that level, however. My habit is to shoot back at the incivility perp when I've been shot at, but not to start the shooting. I'm not perfect and sometimes my sarcasm and affinity for colorful language get the best of me - I apologize in advance for the times I may do that to you (and I was a little snippy that way in responding to your first drug company post, for which apologize).

I invite you to join me in this pattern (and to call me on the carpet if I step outside it.) [/QUOTE]

~~~

Ah, Roxanne, I love you to death, but you really just don't get it do you?

At least PureEvil recognizes that we are locked in a cage with a struggle to the death ensuing.

You blithely wish to preserve civility within that inescapable cage and talk your opponent, mannerly, to think. The beast has no mind, my friend. It is blind and vicious and voracious and wants not just your body buy your soul, your entire existence.

I even understand your position and sympathize with you. You don't understand mine and dismiss my tactics as uncivil. I cannot determine where your problem lies, perhaps you do not acknowledge that 'evil' does indeed exist and is totally and irredeemably, beyond redemption.

I try to cover your 'six', now and then on the forum's, not that you appreciate it, as you seem to lack a dimension in your approach. I will still most likely be tempted to do that, whether you like it or not.

The person you responded to, concerning the 'straw man' accusation, knows full well the point of view I am expressing. That person wants all individual property and patent rights taken over by the Statists, but simply does not have the courage to admit it.

'nuff' said...I still appreciate your efforts in the continuing battle and wish you all the best.

Amicus...