From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #482 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, February 4 2008 Volume 16 : Number 482 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Ralph! [FSThomas ] Re: Ralph! [FSThomas ] Re: Its Turbine Overflows [The Great Quail ] Re: something I've been wondering about [2fs ] Re: Sorry Jill [2fs ] Re: "lolita" in the bedroom [2fs ] Re: On Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama [The Great Quail ] so let's talk about Buffy [Jill Brand ] Re: Its Turbine Overflows [The Great Quail ] Re: Ralph! [Rex ] Re: Ralph! [Barbara Soutar ] Re: Ralph! [2fs ] Re: Ralph! [2fs ] Re: so let's talk about Buffy [2fs ] Re: Ralph! [Christopher Gross ] due props [Jill Brand ] Re: On Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama [Rex ] Re: Ralph! [FSThomas ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:27:58 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Ralph! 2fs wrote: > ... But for broadcast media (whose airwaves are, you will recall, > a public resource), of course it should exist: the theoretical point is that > the airwaves are a scarce public resource over which the government is to > exercise custodianship. "Public airwaves" is a farce! Where did the idea come from? The control of the flow of information is a key (a big ole key) to maintaining political power. In radio's infancy (later followed by television) the government realized that there's real value in controlling the airwaves. It was too late to nail down the Press (that pesky Constitution!) but radio (and later TV) were ripe for the picking. Marconi meddled around with the first broadcasts in, what? The mid-1890s? Ninety years prior to that the founders of the country went out of their way to protect the dissemination of information. They were limited to their point of view; at the time: they only had print media and word-of-mouth to consider and VOILA! both are protected by the First Amendment. Had they been able to envision broadcasting as it exists today do you really think they would have purposefully excluded it from the same protections found for print media? You might be able to argue the government's right to act in protecting a broadcaster's frequency (just as government may play a role in protecting any private property), but the government should be entirely hands-off in terms of content. Were I a broadcaster the government should have zero control over anything; from what political ads my clients pay to broadcast to whether I use the word "fuck" like a comma. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:39:28 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Ralph! Capuchin wrote: > > The average person gets much better care and is not forced to make > economic decisions regarding their health. The growth of government in this country is on a path steering the majority away from having to make *any* economic decisions regarding anything; we're heading towards a nanny state. > Nobody's entrusting the Federal government with health care. We're > entrusting the federal government with the regulation and > fund-distribution in health care. The doctors and nurses will not be > Federal employees. It scares you because you clearly don't understand > it. That's a very common human reaction. Ignorance breeds fear. ( Regulation && Fund-Distribution ) == ( Shortages && Wait-Lists ) > The whole reason we form societies and build civilization and establish > public agencies is to administer mutual aid. Hmmm. Not *here*. Read the Bill of Rights and Constitution and get back to me regarding the administration of mutual aid, please. It might be in there, but I'm drawing a complete and utter blank as to where. > ... the > reality of capitalism: that big business cannot survive without direct > redistribution of public funds into private hands. I counter that were the corporations to have their tax burdens removed - -- a truly unfettered market -- then the need for any redistribution would go away. Unsuccessful businesses (insert most agriculture in this country HERE) should fold and not be propped up by government action. At the same time companies like Shell or Exxon-Mobile should be left alone. And lastly, corporations don't pay taxes, so get that out of your head. They pass the cost of taxes onto their customers every time. > What doesn't make any sense is this apparent ideological link you are > trying to make between individualism and capitalism when it is > all-too-clear that capitalism cannot exist without a massive state > siphoning the wealth of most poeple into the hands of the few. The > state is a friend of capitalism and an enemy of the individual. Right. And becoming another sheep in a herd to spend your entire life with a hand out to the government for everything from cradle to grave is what, then? - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:59:58 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Its Turbine Overflows > i *will* be voting for nader for a fourth > consecutive time...oh yes, i will. Eddie, I would expect nothing less from you. Though aren't you just slightly tempted to write in Noam Chomsky? > Burning Man theme - American Dream.> > > MDC, "John Wayne Was A Nazi" > R.E.M., "Welcome To The Occupation" Etc. You bastard! How can you list all of those American cautionary tales and NOT list Rush's "Beneath, Between, and Behind?" http://artists.letssingit.com/rush-lyrics-beneath-between-and-behind-j5r3q48 - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:19:59 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: something I've been wondering about On 2/4/08, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > > Michael Sweeney wrote: > > ...I won't even spend the > > less-time-than-it-would-take-for-me-to-type-this to > > check, but I think he did a voice (the tow truck) in "Cars" -- but > > his lameness is undeniable on a Dane Cook-like level... > > That's not quite fair; Dane Cook's bit about flinging cashews into > his mouth off the glans of his erect phallus is at least peculiar in > achieving it's tediously lame status instead of predictable. You're joking, right? Because I - and every guy I know - always do that. I mean, when I've got a hard-on, there's nothing better to do with it than eat cashews. Everybody knows that. Lord but you're some kind of freak, apparently. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com PS: I should receive bonus points in this post for refraining from any sort of "nuts" pun ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:22:18 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Sorry Jill On 2/4/08, HwyCDRrev@aol.com wrote: > > to distinguish from the baseball giants > that way confusion is always avoided Who, as I pointed out, have been "The San Francisco Baseball Giants" for about fifty years now... Actually, I think redundant naming like that should become more common. Like "The Robyn Hitchcock & the Musical Venus 3" or something. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:24:19 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: "lolita" in the bedroom On 2/4/08, craigie* wrote: > > I feel it's just the shop workers who are culturally unsound here... > > Put into perspective - how many Wal-Mart employees do you think have heard > of the book or film? Or Nabokov ?(outside of being in a song by the > Police...) Yes, but if everyone knew _Lolita_ like everyone knows, I dunno, the Superb Owl, then whither one's sense of cultural superiority in dropping the odd Nabokov reference? I mean, where would Gordon Sumner's career be without an overweening sense of superiority, I ask you? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:29:08 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: On Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama Rex writes, > Obama vs. Romney is an interesting idea, but scary as well... the > conservative base Romney would energize would contain a higher redneck > element than McCain's, I disagree with you. As you point out, my perspective seems more Midwestern than New York, probably because I grew up in the farmlands of Pennsylvania, which is fairly conservative. And I can tell you this -- the redneck contingent is much more enthusiastic about McCain than Romney. In general, Rednecks like military tough-talkers; wealthy Mormon businessmen take a definite second place behind war heroes. My entire "redneck" family is all about McCain; they like Huckabee, but they see Romney as a used car salesman. They also *hate* Hillary -- and I mean pathologically. And not because she's a woman.... For instance, generally speaking, they'd vote for Condi Rice over any Democrat of any sex, race, or color. I do not disagree that there are racists and knee-jerk conservatives, but I feel that the non-wealthy Republican base is held together more by a feeling of hyper-American jingoism than anything else. Of course, the Bible Belt is something else; but not many "rednecks" self-identify as evangelicals. Again, I think you underestimate Clinton hatred. I think the Democrats are blind to it, partly because the Clinton machine has had control of the party for so long. I hope to hell I am wrong, but if the election is McCain vs. Clinton, she will lose. You also say you see less Clinton-hatred among Dems in your area; that may be true, certainly. There are a few New York Democrats who feel that Hilary is a carpetbagger. - --Quail PS: I do find Hillary's stance on video games to be very alarming; just as I found the PMRC to be alarming. It speaks volumes about a generational disconnect, an unwillingness to embrace new ideas, and a proclivity for Big Brother-like regulations of the arts. These are things I believe strongly in, whether I was a teenager listening to Zappa or a 40-year old man playing Manhunt 2. Would I vote Republican because of Hillary's stance (with the likes of BROWNBACK) over GTA? No, but it certainly puts her low on my list of favored Democrats. PPS: Hillary's favorite TV show is "Grey's Anatomy." Obama's favorite TV show is "The Wire." Need I say more? PPPS: Now, one little thing. I am trying to play nice, Rex. I rejoined the Feglist only after I made the solemn oath *not* to engage you in any nastiness. Can we both put that behind us, and just learn to ignore each other unless we have something useful to say? > Now, I doubt that very seriously, based on your past history of > misinterpreting where I'm coming from in every particular, but what the > heck: > I tend to forget > you're from NYC-- you seem so very midwestern in your outlook.) > I believe a lot of people, yourself > apparently and predictably included, went into this campaign cycle thinking > Hillary was unelectable (and maybe that Giuliani was a lock), and have been > unwilling to take notice of the fact that it just hasn't turned out that > way... and these days, the talk about what a "polarizing" figure she is > invariably comes out sounding bitter and tone-deaf, which only strengthens > her chances. > You're kidding, right? And if you're not, that's really the first knock you > come out with against Hillary? Somehow, in the confusion of all the other > issues at hand, I haven't bothered to research where *any* of the candidates > stand on Grand Theft Auto or Sonic the Hedgehog. Paint me as > "generationally ignorant" as well, I guess... I'm 36, but I just haven't > maintained a passionate interest in gaming since my Colecovision bit the > dust in 1985. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:31:38 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: Sorry Jill On Feb 3, 2008 7:58 PM, 2fs wrote: > On 2/3/08, Tom Clark wrote: > > > > But The New York Football Giants are Super Bowl Champions!!! Oh yeah!! > > > I'm curious: given that there hasn't been a New York Anything-Else Giants > for 50 years or so, why the phrase "Football Giants" here? > Further, kids... it's Superb Owl around here. Now it's time to get ready for Supert Uesday! Vote. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:32:46 -0500 (EST) From: Jill Brand Subject: so let's talk about Buffy OK? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:59:58 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Its Turbine Overflows > i *will* be voting for nader for a fourth > consecutive time...oh yes, i will. Eddie, I would expect nothing less from you. Though aren't you just slightly tempted to write in Noam Chomsky? > Burning Man theme - American Dream.> > > MDC, "John Wayne Was A Nazi" > R.E.M., "Welcome To The Occupation" Etc. You bastard! How can you list all of those American cautionary tales and NOT list Rush's "Beneath, Between, and Behind?" http://artists.letssingit.com/rush-lyrics-beneath-between-and-behind-j5r3q48 - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:42:34 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: Ralph! On Feb 3, 2008 12:51 PM, FSThomas wrote: > > A decade from now it'll be undisputed that the whole Global Warming > phenom was a joke, just as we now know the threats of a coming ice age > back in the 70s were a joke. Well, that's where I stop reading. I'm convinced. I say, fuck it. Let's pollute more just because we can! We* can have cooler, louder, faster cars, which is extremely important, and everything will turn out just fine. Pitch all the catalytic converters, chop down as many trees as possible, and breathe in deep. Go the Republicans! - -Rex *"we" here = the wealthy, because fuck everyone else ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:50:38 -0800 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: Re: Ralph! ferris said: "You subsidize behavior you want to reinforce and you tax behavior you want to suppress. In this case you subsidize healthcare and to pay for it you tax the successful. You score by getting people forever locked into dependency on the government and at the same time suppress entrepreneurial behavior and the desire for success." A Canadian subsidizes health care with their taxes very willingly. There shouldn't be any entrepreneurial component to health care... in September of 2000 when I had my brain surgery I wasn't in any position to "choose" my brain surgeon with price in mind. I was helpless and grateful to be given the best care suggested by my family doctor. I was given the same care that the Prime Minister would have received. My only fear was survival - if I'd had to worry about paying for it, the anxiety would have been too much to bear. Sick people are not to be exploited, although they are desperate. They aren't "customers". Taxes are not supposesd to be a punishment, except when it comes to cigarette and alcohol taxes. They're the price you pay for living a civilized life. Barbara Soutar Victoria, BC ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:54:57 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Ralph! On 2/4/08, FSThomas wrote: > > > > What doesn't make any sense is this apparent ideological link you are > > trying to make between individualism and capitalism when it is > > all-too-clear that capitalism cannot exist without a massive state > > siphoning the wealth of most poeple into the hands of the few. The > > state is a friend of capitalism and an enemy of the individual. > > Right. And becoming another sheep in a herd to spend your entire life > with a hand out to the government for everything from cradle to grave is > what, then? Preferable to dying of a curable disease merely because you can't afford healthcare - or having every aspect of life controlled by some business utterly out of our control. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:00:03 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Ralph! On 2/4/08, FSThomas wrote: > > 2fs wrote: > > > I would think it's arguable that the best quality of care available is > here. Federalize it and that quality will evaporate faster than an ice > cube in Hell. (The exothermic Hell, not the endothermic one.) How the hell do you measure "quality of care"? Can I see some statistics, please, on whether US citizens are, on average, in better health than Europeans? Or on how common illnesses and ailments are treated and how much they cost, how much that cost redirects personal spending away from fueling the economy in more productive ways, how much medical issues cost lost work time, how much stress caused by medical issues or inability to pay for them leads to psychological problems, etc.? Of course there are flaws in various government health programs - no program can be perfect. But I will simply say that I think it's immoral for people to profit from other people's accidental misery. End of story, for me. Health is a public issue - in that it affects not only the person whose health is directly affected but also the public generally. This is most apparent with contagious illness, of course - let's see what happens if a highly dangerous, highly contagious disease gets a footing among the poor and uninsured of this country - but is true in less direct ways as well. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:03:20 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: so let's talk about Buffy On 2/4/08, Jill Brand wrote: > > OK? That's a complete non-issue - just because Barack Obama's friends called him "Buffy" when he was a grade-schooler, that doesn't mean he's a closet transsexual! The right-wing smear machine sure is desperate, eh? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:09:36 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Ralph! On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, FSThomas wrote: > A decade from now it'll be undisputed that the whole Global Warming > phenom was a joke, just as we now know the threats of a coming ice age > back in the 70s were a joke. Gotta pipe up here to point out that the two are not really comparable. In the 70s there were just a handful of articles speculating about a possible coming ice age. There was no broad scientific consensus about it, as there is today about global warming. Re: your prediction about a decade from now, you seem awfully confident. Would you care to lay ten bucks on it? (Maybe we can get woj to hold the money.) - --Chris "amazed to learn that we Americans don't have to wait for medical treatment" the Christer ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:10:14 -0500 (EST) From: Jill Brand Subject: due props Deep breath. I think that the Giants deserve kudos for their upset victory last night. I am totally devastated, but that doesn't mean that a. I had confidence that the Patse were going to win from the get-go b. I don't recognize that the Giants played harder and that the Pats offense looked like it had hardly ever played together before. What I really hate is that Boston baseball and football seem to have taken on this Yankee-like persona or reputation. Everyone thought it was great when the Sox finally won in 2004, but now everyone hates them. And the country cheered when the Pats upset the Rams in SB XXXVI (I'm just practicing my Roman numerals), but now they made the nation happy by losing. This is natural. I'm not whining. I'm really happy for my neighbor Tony, who is a rabid Giants fan (do you all know that the Giants second largest fanbase is New England because we didn't have an NFL team for so long? A lot of my friends root for the Giants because their fathers were Giants fans). I'm just sad that we are now the Rolling Stones instead of the Kinks. Plus, as hard as I tried to have a good class this morning, I had a Saudi woman kind of freak out after class. So congrats to you, Tom Clark. But fuck you anyway. We'll talk about Johann Santana at some other time. Jill, who is grateful for all of those of Montreal downloads that some of you directed me to ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:19:54 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: On Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama On Feb 4, 2008 9:29 AM, The Great Quail wrote: > Rex writes, > > > I disagree with you. As you point out, my perspective seems more > Midwestern > than New York, probably because I grew up in the farmlands of > Pennsylvania, > which is fairly conservative. And I can tell you this -- the redneck > contingent is much more enthusiastic about McCain than Romney. I'm aware of that (from West Virginia here), and that's what's scary. McCain may be able to sell the war back to the same people who have been against it because of little things like their kids being killed in it. He must be stopped. > > They also *hate* Hillary -- and I mean pathologically. And not because > she's > a woman.... For instance, generally speaking, they'd vote for Condi Rice > over any Democrat of any sex, race, or color. I do not disagree that > there > are racists and knee-jerk conservatives, but I feel that the non-wealthy > Republican base is held together more by a feeling of hyper-American > jingoism than anything else. Maybe. Not a single one of them would actually vote for Obama, either, though. Racism aside, his policies are damn near the same as Hillary's, and that's what the debate will have been about for months, come November. Obama is not Condi Rice in many, many ways, none of them Redneck-Friendly. Again, I think you underestimate Clinton hatred. I think the Democrats are > blind to it, partly because the Clinton machine has had control of the > party > for so long. Some might underestimate it for that reason, but not me-- I broke up with the Clintons a long time ago (midway through Bill's first term) and have only recently come to support Hillary, based on the campaign she's put together. (I give her the edge over Obama for only piddling reasons, one being that I hope Obama will join up as VP and rack up the experience he needs, the other being that where Clinton and Obama differ, particularly on health care, I prefer her take on it.) Question for you, non-intentionally-antagonizing department: what is it about Hillary per se that would make voting for her in November so much more of a hold-your-nose proposition? Your knocks against her are mainly in the area of her electability, but if she's on the ticket in November, are you saying you'll find her more repugnant than your average weak candidate just becaus you know *other people* dislike her? Her policies don't differ from Obama's enough to seem to give you, personally, any reason to dislike her that deeply. > I hope to hell I am wrong, but if the election is McCain vs. > Clinton, she will lose. I'm not sure. I say there are strong odds that McCain will make some hothead "maverick" gaffe and shoot himself in the foot either way. I also think that when the field is clear, the war will be a bigger issue and a stark contrast, and having a flagrantly pro-war candidate is not the best strategy with Middle America, as I know it. For that reason I'm flummoxed by your (I assume essentially Democratic) friends-- and make no mistake, I'm glad you're not one of them-- who would pick McCain over Clinton in November. Vote one way, more Americans die and the world hates us ever more and more... but hey, if your dislike of Hillary's personality-- as opposed to the winsome charms of McCain-- are a bigger deal than that, then go on with your bad self. > You also say you see less Clinton-hatred among Dems in your area; that may > be true, certainly. There are a few New York Democrats who feel that > Hilary > is a carpetbagger\ That's a very real factor, I'm sure. PS: I do find Hillary's stance on video games to be very alarming; just as I > found the PMRC to be alarming. It speaks volumes about a generational > disconnect, an unwillingness to embrace new ideas, and a proclivity for > Big > Brother-like regulations of the arts. These are things I believe strongly > in, whether I was a teenager listening to Zappa or a 40-year old man > playing > Manhunt 2. Would I vote Republican because of Hillary's stance (with the > likes of BROWNBACK) over GTA? No, but it certainly puts her low on my list > of favored Democrats. Well, as I said, I'm not aware of any of the candidates' takes on videogames, partially because I don't give a shit about them personally. Of course the PMRC was lame, and of course the TV ratings system is lame, and of course censorship is abhorrent to me. That aside, I do see a litte bit of a difference between video games as they exist now and most other kinds of art, even the hideously violent kinds, inasmuchas they put people/children literally in the position of killers and so forth and sell that as "cool" or whatever. But that just alarms me on a cultural level (as does the popularity of anything immensely stupid and morally bankrupt), and I can pretty much contain that by not buying my kids Grand Theft Auto or whatever > > PPS: Hillary's favorite TV show is "Grey's Anatomy." Obama's favorite TV > show is "The Wire." Need I say more? Well, to me you do (not that I ask you to) because I don't watch television, so I don't know much about those shows. Is Grey's Anatomy the one with the "Mc-" thing? That's not cool. But it's points against both of them in my book that they're wasting time keeping up with serialized television, and that's pretty much it. PPPS: Now, one little thing. I am trying to play nice, Rex. I rejoined the > Feglist only after I made the solemn oath *not* to engage you in any > nastiness. Can we both put that behind us, and just learn to ignore each > other unless we have something useful to say? Hopefully this is useful stuff-- YMMV. I do apologize for any nastiness in my previous response. There's plenty of fireworks elsewhere on the list now, so I'm happy to be more or less comparing notes on the electoral mood here-- that interests me more than rehashing Nader, fer damn sure! - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:39:30 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Ralph! 2fs wrote: > How the hell do you measure "quality of care"? Can I see some statistics, > please, on whether US citizens are, on average, in better health than > Europeans? I never said anything about health *condition*, but the over-all quality of the care available. Big difference. Grady Hospital here in Atlanta is the "safety net" hospital for the city (as well as the only high-grade trauma hospital in the state). Everyone knows if you haven't the money to pay, you go there. If you have a gunshot wound you want to go there, too, but not, say, to deliver a baby. There was a lengthy piece in the Times about it back at the beginning of the year (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/us/08grady.html). Grady's been hemorrhaging money for years mostly because they don't get any financial support outside of Fulton and Dekalb counties while providing trauma service to the entire state and safety net healthcare to probably an additional five counties outside of those who contribute. The solution to starting to fix Grady's financial woes? Not to have the city take it over, but rather to have it turn to a not-for-profit organization. Should hospitals be non-profits? I wouldn't object. I would object to taking the profit out of being a doctor, however. And there's a distinction there. > Or on how common illnesses and ailments are treated and how much > they cost, how much that cost redirects personal spending away from fueling > the economy in more productive ways, how much medical issues cost lost work > time, how much stress caused by medical issues or inability to pay for them > leads to psychological problems, etc.? If you weigh the cost of medical care in terms of monies redirected from fueling the economy then how would you justify providing care for a non-productive member of society? (I'm NOT recommending this, folks.) The elderly, the handicapped, or the willfully unemployed wouldn't qualify for anything if that were the measure. > Of course there are flaws in various government health programs - no program > can be perfect. But I will simply say that I think it's immoral for people > to profit from other people's accidental misery. End of story, for me. I think that pursuing a career in medicine is a very noble choice, given a few caveats. A cardiologist, for example, is a necessary profession (especially when taking into account heart disease both here in the States and abroad). On a dollar-per-patient basis, however, they take it in the shorts when compared to a plastic surgeon. Now, yes, reconstructive surgery goes a long way to improving quality of life accident victims (ie: getting your face gnawed off by a dog), I don't rank them on the same tier as, say, said cardiologist. If you federalize the system you'll have to bring in cost controls. Aside from just refusing or delaying treatment you'll see caps placed on what the government will be willing to pay. This already happens under the insurance company model now. I spent a lovely evening in the ER back in November -- I know insurance don't cover everything. If you cap what they're willing to pay then you cap what hospitals and private practices can pay their physicians, surgeons, nurses, techs, etc. If you cap salaries or compensations you'll see a shortage of physicians and healthcare professionals. Why would someone go to school for God knows how long, incur piles of debt, put up with internships and wretched hours during that hazing process, and then spend the rest of your career paying massive insurance premiums to prevent themselves from getting sued into the stone age if there's no light at the end of the tunnel; no reward? Cry altruism all you want, but it will drive more people away from the profession than to it. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #482 ********************************