PDA

View Full Version : Its all a deathpanel, the truth about osamacare



Bob Gutermuth
08-20-2009, 12:00 PM
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/08/18/its-all-a-death-panel-the-truth-about-obamacare/#more-624

Buzz
08-20-2009, 01:17 PM
You want to see rationing and death panels?

Lets leave the system the way it is. Let costs increase until medicare goes broke. Then there will be LOTS of old folks dying of untreated illness. There won't be a private insurance company that'll take them for all the money they have saved in their lives.

Bob Gutermuth
08-20-2009, 03:54 PM
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081309/content/01125108.guest.html

dnf777
08-20-2009, 04:26 PM
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081309/content/01125108.guest.html

what next? Financial blogs from Bernie Madoff? Or marital advice from Mark Sanford? Not enough time in the day to waste a second of it on Rush or any other extreme wacko drug addict, from either side of the spectrum.

YardleyLabs
08-20-2009, 06:29 PM
The fact is that every managed care plan is currently in the business of rationing care to their insured populations. They have hidden behind the defense that they are not denying care. They are simply refusing to pay for it and should face no consequences other than paying the cost of services that were received by the patient but not reimbursed. Of course, if the patient was unable to obtain treatment because of the absence of insurance coverage, nothing is owed. To date, courts have generally accepted this limited view of liability since the insurance companies are not actually considered to be health care providers.

Increasingly, service limitations take the form of a "bribe". Specifically, patients with terminal illnesses are offered home care services but only if they sign away any right to treatment designed to prolong their lives. My father wrestled with this with my mother and ultimately rejected such services and, despite being seriously disabled by his own medical conditions, changed and laundered her bedding 6-8 times per day during the last year of her life. At the same time, life insurance programs are offering terminally ill patients buy -outs on their death benefits. Terminally ill people expected to die in less than six months are offered immediate payment of a fraction of the death benefits that would otherwise go to their beneficiaries in return for gving up their insurance. For many, including a 57 year old acquaintance who recently died of liver cancer while in his 50's, this was the only way to pay the cost of his care when his insurance company stopped paying the bills.

Are these forms of trade-off right or wrong? I don't know any simple way to answer that question.

dnf777
08-20-2009, 07:04 PM
Are these forms of trade-off right or wrong? I don't know any simple way to answer that question.

I would add the banks' offers of reverse-mortgages to the retired or elderly. Its basically offering a few carrots to someone in financial difficulty, then taking their home when they die instead of it going to their children. Nice way to collect properties.

mjh345
08-23-2009, 09:55 AM
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081309/content/01125108.guest.html

So we are to assume a link to a drug addict would be unbiased and reliable?
Couldn't find a Marion Berry link for us to rely on?

tpaschal30
08-24-2009, 05:29 AM
The fact is that every managed care plan is currently in the business of rationing care to their insured populations. They have hidden behind the defense that they are not denying care. They are simply refusing to pay for it and should face no consequences other than paying the cost of services that were received by the patient but not reimbursed. Of course, if the patient was unable to obtain treatment because of the absence of insurance coverage, nothing is owed. To date, courts have generally accepted this limited view of liability since the insurance companies are not actually considered to be health care providers.

Increasingly, service limitations take the form of a "bribe". Specifically, patients with terminal illnesses are offered home care services but only if they sign away any right to treatment designed to prolong their lives. My father wrestled with this with my mother and ultimately rejected such services and, despite being seriously disabled by his own medical conditions, changed and laundered her bedding 6-8 times per day during the last year of her life. At the same time, life insurance programs are offering terminally ill patients buy -outs on their death benefits. Terminally ill people expected to die in less than six months are offered immediate payment of a fraction of the death benefits that would otherwise go to their beneficiaries in return for gving up their insurance. For many, including a 57 year old acquaintance who recently died of liver cancer while in his 50's, this was the only way to pay the cost of his care when his insurance company stopped paying the bills.

Are these forms of trade-off right or wrong? I don't know any simple way to answer that question.

Khrushchev always said we would go willingly. We keep handing more power to the government, while we blame a so called market system that is hampered by the most successful union ever in America(AMA) and government intrusion(over 50%). The problem is too much government now and we are going to cure it with more.

YardleyLabs
08-24-2009, 06:22 AM
Khrushchev always said we would go willingly. We keep handing more power to the government, while we blame a so called market system that is hampered by the most successful union ever in America(AMA) and government intrusion(over 50%). The problem is too much government now and we are going to cure it with more.
It's been a long time since doctors ruled the roost in health care. Between 1995 and 2003, real physician incomes declined more than 7%. Control has now passed to managed care companies. Physician job satisfaction is down, and too much time is spent on non patient care activities. Even after some gains in the last few years, the number of medical school applicants is still 10% less than in 1996. One of the objective of true health care reform has to be breaking the grip that corporate bureaucrats, divorced from any accountability for patient care, have on the delivery of medical services.

tpaschal30
08-24-2009, 07:46 AM
It's been a long time since doctors ruled the roost in health care. Between 1995 and 2003, real physician incomes declined more than 7%. Control has now passed to managed care companies. Physician job satisfaction is down, and too much time is spent on non patient care activities. Even after some gains in the last few years, the number of medical school applicants is still 10% less than in 1996. One of the objective of true health care reform has to be breaking the grip that corporate bureaucrats, divorced from any accountability for patient care, have on the delivery of medical services.

Why in the health care bill is there no plan to increase the amount of providers. Might be the reason the AMA is for the bill. They control who and how many can provide all in the name of supposedly benefiting the patient.
If there were a shortage of penecillin sould there not be a plan to produce more of it. If there is a shortage of HC why is there no plan to increase the amount of providers. The plan being propoded increases demand for health care without increasing supply. Guess what happens then? That is why this plan is not about health care.
Ever hear of the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. Doctors are not accountable to patients since they don't pay the bill. Delivery is not the problem, it is who the payer is.

dnf777
08-24-2009, 07:51 AM
Why in the health care bill is there no plan to increase the amount of providers. Might be the reason the AMA is for the bill. They control who and how many can provide all in the name of supposedly benefiting the patient.
If there were a shortage of penecillin sould there not be a plan to produce more of it. If there is a shortage of HC why is there no plan to increase the amount of providers. The plan being propoded increases demand for health care without increasing supply. Guess what happens then? That is why this plan is not about health care.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that the "gooberment" intervene in private business to increase the number of docs?????
The AMA has no clout whatsoever to increase the number of docs, any more than the teacher's union can increase the number of teachers. The only way they can do that, is to try and influence reimbursement rates in the positive direction....ie, more pay. It's called the free market system. The fact more Americans aren't going to med school, is they see that gov't and the big blues set wages, not the free market. To many foreign docs, our salaries are fortunes, so get ready to not understand what your doc says anymore. "tank you very much...please come again!"

code3retrievers
08-24-2009, 07:54 AM
One of the objective of true health care reform has to be breaking the grip that corporate bureaucrats, divorced from any accountability for patient care, have on the delivery of medical services.

So you want to replace corporate bureaucrats with government bureaucrats. Brilliant! I have never witnessed government run anything more effiently then the private sector. When government is involved the costumer is no longer a customer but is a number and an annoyance.

How about true reform where we give the purchasing power back to the people and cut out the insurance companies and keep government out of the decisions by having the people pay the doctors directly for minor services and keep insurance for major illnesses.

In any case the first item should be tort reform.

road kill
08-24-2009, 08:03 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that the "gooberment" intervene in private business to increase the number of docs?????
The AMA has no clout whatsoever to increase the number of docs, any more than the teacher's union can increase the number of teachers. The only way they can do that, is to try and influence reimbursement rates in the positive direction....ie, more pay. It's called the free market system. The fact more Americans aren't going to med school, is they see that gov't and the big blues set wages, not the free market. To many foreign docs, our salaries are fortunes, so get ready to not understand what your doc says anymore. "tank you very much...please come again!"

If you think we are short of Drs. now, wait till we add 50,000,000 plus patients to the healthcare dole, oops, I meant roll.

The reason "the Obama" will ram anything through is because once it's in, they will continue to tack on more items as we go along.....forever!!

YardleyLabs
08-24-2009, 09:08 AM
So you want to replace corporate bureaucrats with government bureaucrats. Brilliant! I have never witnessed government run anything more effiently then the private sector. When government is involved the costumer is no longer a customer but is a number and an annoyance.

How about true reform where we give the purchasing power back to the people and cut out the insurance companies and keep government out of the decisions by having the people pay the doctors directly for minor services and keep insurance for major illnesses.

In any case the first item should be tort reform.

Actually, I pretty happy with the managed care approach as long as the companies are held liable for the medical impacts of their decisions. The biggest problem is that they are now shielded from liability and thephysician is left holding the bag on decisions the corporate bureaucrats make.


Why in the health care bill is there no plan to increase the amount of providers. Might be the reason the AMA is for the bill. They control who and how many can provide all in the name of supposedly benefiting the patient.
If there were a shortage of penecillin sould there not be a plan to produce more of it. If there is a shortage of HC why is there no plan to increase the amount of providers. The plan being propoded increases demand for health care without increasing supply. Guess what happens then? That is why this plan is not about health care.
Ever hear of the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. Doctors are not accountable to patients since they don't pay the bill. Delivery is not the problem, it is who the payer is.
If you read the bill you would see that there is a fairly substantial investment in efforts to expand the number of primary care providers.

dnf777
08-24-2009, 09:21 AM
If you think we are short of Drs. now, wait till we add 50,000,000 plus patients to the healthcare dole, oops, I meant roll.

The reason "the Obama" will ram anything through is because once it's in, they will continue to tack on more items as we go along.....forever!!

RK,
Agreed. There will be increasing demand, and decreasing supply. Since the free market forces don't apply to the healthcare field, One fix I'm afraid I see coming is a Federal license that will be mandatory, and will mandate participation in Obama-care, at set fees. Doctors will be the first true victims of socialism. True gov't wage fixing.

All I can say, is if you want to understand your doctor in a few years, brush up on your Chinese and Farsi. Hey, maybe there's a closet niche....Rosetta Stone for Patients in your choice of Farsi, Chinese, Arabic, Russian.....:confused:

Tank you, pliss come again regards,
dave

tpaschal30
08-24-2009, 10:09 AM
Actually, I pretty happy with the managed care approach as long as the companies are held liable for the medical impacts of their decisions. The biggest problem is that they are now shielded from liability and thephysician is left holding the bag on decisions the corporate bureaucrats make.


If you read the bill you would see that there is a fairly substantial investment in efforts to expand the number of primary care providers.

In 2008 there were over 500, 000 applications to med school and 18,000 admitted. Is there any mention of additional med schools for the "crisis"? No! They are going to encourage residents to go to other fields shortening the supply in other areas. the total number of doctors remain the same.

source
http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2008/2008school.htm

Buzz
08-24-2009, 10:18 AM
RK,

All I can say, is if you want to understand your doctor in a few years, brush up on your Chinese and Farsi. Hey, maybe there's a closet niche....Rosetta Stone for Patients in your choice of Farsi, Chinese, Arabic, Russian.....:confused:



It's been happening for years. My last four primary doctors were American, Indian, and Indian. The first doc retired. The next two were young just out of medical school. I live in a rural area and since my doc retired I can only get what is available at our clinic here. Seems like lots of young foreign doctors coming and going...

BonMallari
08-24-2009, 10:18 AM
RK,
Agreed. There will be increasing demand, and decreasing supply. Since the free market forces don't apply to the healthcare field, One fix I'm afraid I see coming is a Federal license that will be mandatory, and will mandate participation in Obama-care, at set fees. Doctors will be the first true victims of socialism. True gov't wage fixing.

All I can say, is if you want to understand your doctor in a few years, brush up on your Chinese and Farsi. Hey, maybe there's a closet niche....Rosetta Stone for Patients in your choice of Farsi, Chinese, Arabic, Russian.....:confused:

Tank you, pliss come again regards,
dave

that a real racist comment...my brother went to med school in England an he happens to be of Asian descent...My son's pediatrician is Lebanese and one of the best I have ever found. I hope for your sake you never need a doctor to save your life in an emergency room situation because you dont get the chance to pick and choose based on their ethnic back ground

YardleyLabs
08-24-2009, 11:02 AM
In 2008 there were over 500, 000 applications to med school and 18,000 admitted. Is there any mention of additional med schools for the "crisis"? No! They are going to encourage residents to go to other fields shortening the supply in other areas. the total number of doctors remain the same.

source
http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2008/2008school.htm

As noted in your source, there were about 42000 applicants in 2008. That compares with 46000+ in 1996. The number of applications per applicant has increased.

The number of medical schools has been increasing annually, but the concerns about shortage are not equal across all specialties. The primary shortages are in primary care positions: GP's, family care specialists, internists, OG/GYN, etc. There are also clear shortages in more rural areas throughout the country. Simply increasing the number of physicians without addressing maldistribution geographically and by specialty would have little benefit. The House bill addresses some of these areas, but more will need to be done. It is also clear that some systemic changes could also improve the efficacy of existing resources. As an aside, there is a fair amount of evidence that medical service usage is driven more by the availability of services than it is by the need for services. As the number of providers goes up, visits go up with no obvious benefit in health outcomes. This pattern was first identified in a book titled Doctors, Patient and Health Care by Hermann Somers in the 1970's and has been repeatedly illustrated since then by health economists.

Overall, I believe the concerns about the resources needed to treat people who are now uninsured are overstated. The uninsured currently receive care. If they have major illnesses, their medical bills are generally sufficient for them to qualify for Medicaid. If they have emergent needs, they are treated without regard to ability to pay. What they do not receive is appropriate preventive and primary care. Arguably if they did their overall health needs would actually be less over the long term.

dnf777
08-24-2009, 11:15 AM
that a real racist comment...my brother went to med school in England an he happens to be of Asian descent...My son's pediatrician is Lebanese and one of the best I have ever found. I hope for your sake you never need a doctor to save your life in an emergency room situation because you dont get the chance to pick and choose based on their ethnic back ground

You need to watch what you call racist. I work alongside foreign doctors every day, I don't just "have a brother". I made no reference to the quality or dedication of FMGs, but if you think there's not a problem in many cases of communication, you are very naive. Just because you can pass a TOEFL test does NOT mean you are conversant in a language, and right now, that's all we have.

Medical issues and decision making are very VERY complex issues, that emcompass technical terms that need to be clarified to patients, and believe it or not, social and persona values often come up in conversations. Those personal interactions require a firm grip on a language.

I've been to my Grandfather's doc with him several times. As a physician, I COULDN'T TELL WHAT HE WAS SAYING! Now his treatment is always excellent, with no impugning his competency, but not once in 30 years has my grandfather knew what the hell was happening!

If you are the "racist policeman" of this forum, I can refer you to plenty of comments regarding "Osama" and reference to his ethnicity, if you need to fill your quota of racisism demerits, but you need not look at me.

Oh, and by the way, last time I checked, they speak english in England. Not sure what the point was?:confused::confused:

tpaschal30
08-24-2009, 01:37 PM
As noted in your source, there were about 42000 applicants in 2008. That compares with 46000+ in 1996. The number of applications per applicant has increased.

The number of medical schools has been increasing annually, but the concerns about shortage are not equal across all specialties. The primary shortages are in primary care positions: GP's, family care specialists, internists, OG/GYN, etc. There are also clear shortages in more rural areas throughout the country. Simply increasing the number of physicians without addressing maldistribution geographically and by specialty would have little benefit. .

That is where a free market would work. With the new system they will have to entice or force doctors to live where they do not wish to.

Buck Mann
08-24-2009, 02:30 PM
Why in the health care bill is there no plan to increase the amount of providers. Might be the reason the AMA is for the bill. They control who and how many can provide all in the name of supposedly benefiting the patient.

Interesting discussion with many good points. However, the AMA doesn't control anything. I think the most recent numbers show that the majority of physicians are not even members of the AMA and it's membership has declined. Historically they have been a totally ineffective lobby.

A big part of the problem is the cost of giving medical care to the aged in an aging population. Also, the acess that Americans are used to having to highly technical care is very expensive. So far, no country has come up with a model that works well. Time will tell if ours can. I think there are going to be too many concessions needed by the population to make it very palatable. There will have to be some sort of rationing to make health care for everyone financially viable. We'll see if the people are willing to accept that.

They way medicine is headed with continually decreasing reimbursements, increasing regulation and deteriorating satisfaction with the practice of medicine, I have a hard time recommending this profession to young people.

Buck

Gerry Clinchy
08-24-2009, 02:50 PM
As an aside, there is a fair amount of evidence that medical service usage is driven more by the availability of services than it is by the need for services. As the number of providers goes up, visits go up with no obvious benefit in health outcomes. This pattern was first identified in a book titled Doctors, Patient and Health Care by Hermann Somers in the 1970's and has been repeatedly illustrated since then by health economists.


The stats may hold true under our present system, but if adding universal health care insurance to the picture, a new variable, those stats may, or may not, continue to hold true.

YardleyLabs
08-24-2009, 04:33 PM
That is where a free market would work. With the new system they will have to entice or force doctors to live where they do not wish to.
If you want a free market in health care, get rid of health insurance altogether. Once you get past the transition period when tens of thousands die for lack of care, and many leave the industry for lack of revenue, those left who are able to pay anything asked will receive outstanding care. However, they will still have trouble getting that care in rural areas.

It's not clear, in fact, that there is a good answer for rural care. In truly rural areas, the infrastructure to support modern medicine is not readily available. As a consequence, the real answer may lie in more intense us of communication and transportation resources to support primary care providers in rural areas and move people to more urban areas for all other care. While I haven't seen recent data, when I was first involved in research on these issues the average compensation for rural GP's was actually higher than for urban GP's. Despite this, there were few takers because of the lack of hospitals and ancillary services in rural areas.

I think Buck Mann's comment that "They way medicine is headed with continually decreasing reimbursements, increasing regulation and deteriorating satisfaction with the practice of medicine, I have a hard time recommending this profession to young people." is very true. This is not the product of government run insurance, it is the product of private managed care plans and government run plans. The primary approach used for driving down costs has been to drive down physician compensation. What other professions have seen reduced income over the last decade? However, i suspect that the bigger problems have been related to the increased bureacratization of care and the pressure it has placed on physicians to perform more and more administrative activities that are not directly tied to patient care.

Having said that, I am extremely impressed by the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center group practice that I now use. They have put together administrative and computer resources that appear to work extremely well. My physician spends her time being a physician and loves the fact that she always as the chart at her fingertips, always has every lab test and xray at her fingertips, and can order whatever is needed in seconds and have the appointments be scheduled and printed out for me immediately, all with virtually no typing of her own. I have toured a lot of medical facilities and do not believe I have ever seen a better run clinic.

road kill
08-24-2009, 04:42 PM
If you want a free market in health care, get rid of health insurance altogether. Once you get past the transition period when tens of thousands die for lack of care, and many leave the industry for lack of revenue, those left who are able to pay anything asked will receive outstanding care. However, they will still have trouble getting that care in rural areas.
It's not clear, in fact, that there is a good answer for rural care. In truly rural areas, the infrastructure to support modern medicine is not readily available. As a consequence, the real answer may lie in more intense us of communication and transportation resources to support primary care providers in rural areas and move people to more urban areas for all other care. While I haven't seen recent data, when I was first involved in research on these issues the average compensation for rural GP's was actually higher than for urban GP's. Despite this, there were few takers because of the lack of hospitals and ancillary services in rural areas.

I think Buck Mann's comment that "They way medicine is headed with continually decreasing reimbursements, increasing regulation and deteriorating satisfaction with the practice of medicine, I have a hard time recommending this profession to young people." is very true. This is not the product of government run insurance, it is the product of private managed care plans and government run plans. The primary approach used for driving down costs has been to drive down physician compensation. What other professions have seen reduced income over the last decade? However, i suspect that the bigger problems have been related to the increased bureacratization of care and the pressure it has placed on physicians to perform more and more administrative activities that are not directly tied to patient care.

Having said that, I am extremely impressed by the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center group practice that I now use. They have put together administrative and computer resources that appear to work extremely well. My physician spends her time being a physician and loves the fact that she always as the chart at her fingertips, always has every lab test and xray at her fingertips, and can order whatever is needed in seconds and have the appointments be scheduled and printed out for me immediately, all with virtually no typing of her own. I have toured a lot of medical facilities and do not believe I have ever seen a better run clinic.

Funny, that's exactly what we think will happen with socialized healthcare.

M&K's Retrievers
08-24-2009, 10:43 PM
[that a real racist comment... I hope for your sake you never need a doctor to save your life in an emergency room situation because you dont get the chance to pick and choose based on their ethnic back ground[/QUOTE]

Careful now. DNF will get his feelings hurt:rolleyes:

dnf777
08-25-2009, 05:11 AM
[that a real racist comment... I hope for your sake you never need a doctor to save your life in an emergency room situation because you dont get the chance to pick and choose based on their ethnic back ground

Careful now. DNF will get his feelings hurt:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

If you think your comments can affect me like that, you have a really overinflated opinion of your self-importance!:rolleyes:

What I take exception to is race-baiting comments like that. In no way did I refer to race. I pointed out that more and more voids in the healthcare workforce will be filled with people from other areas of the world that may or may not speak english. (England not being one of them, since I assume they still speak english there, albeit with an accent)

I think most reasonable people on this list, esp those who have had experince with poor-english-speaking doctors will sympathize, and not accuse that observation as being racist. There is a difference between race and one's first language or country of origin. Believe it or not MK, there are white people from other countries that are more difficult to understand than many of different races.

So get your racial-policing haclkes back down, nobody is violating your rules here. Relax, life's good.

Happy bumper regards,
dave

Bob Gutermuth
08-25-2009, 08:31 AM
Dave, you are right on the money. I cannot think of many things that are scarier than going to the emergency room and being treated by an MD who has poor English skills. Being unable to communicate with the doctor is a major roadblock in getting the proper treatment. He/she may be a fine doctor, but not being able to understand one another is a major problem in getting a problem fixed. Been there done that.

BonMallari
08-25-2009, 11:50 AM
Some of you are missing the point on foreign born doctors, whether they speak Farsi,Chinese,Vietnamese, these doctors are by and large the cream of the crop of there respective countries.Look at any large metropolitan city and pick any specialty and more than likely one of the pre eminent specialists is a foreign born doctor. They are not the folks you see at your local 7-11 or any motel near your favorite HT/FT

Even better yet take a look at this years National Spelling Bee finalists, most of the kids were either of Pakistani, Asian or Indian descent..coincidence..not hardly..These countries are beating us at a game the US invented

dnf777
08-25-2009, 12:17 PM
Some of you are missing the point on foreign born doctors, whether they speak Farsi,Chinese,Vietnamese, these doctors are by and large the cream of the crop of there respective countries.Look at any large metropolitan city and pick any specialty and more than likely one of the pre eminent specialists is a foreign born doctor. They are not the folks you see at your local 7-11 or any motel near your favorite HT/FT

Even better yet take a look at this years National Spelling Bee finalists, most of the kids were either of Pakistani, Asian or Indian descent..coincidence..not hardly..These countries are beating us at a game the US invented

yeah, you're right, and its' a damn shame! Our kids are too busy eating microwave popcorn, juicyfruits, and playing wii to do anything like study! At least I was too busy playing football and stickball outside to study.....at least there's some exercise benefit there. We are turning into a fat, stupid lazy culture, that can't hold intelligent debate and engage in politics in a constructive way. (that's NOT aimed at anyone here!!) Even if I disagree some of the time, I take comfort in the fact there's so many here engaged in discussion, and researching, and being politically active, and I enjoy the hell out of it. Keeps rust out of the noggin.

I'm at work (lunch break) right now, but as I type, there are literally MILLIONS of americans watching Oprah or Jerry Springer, stuffing chips and soda down their gullet as fast as chubby arms will allow, whose ONLY fluid intake is soda, and the only thing they've read is the warming directions on a swanson box. Pretty ugly picture, but it explains why we're getting our butts whipped by many international measures, and why our life expectancy is decreasing.

Bob Gutermuth
08-25-2009, 12:21 PM
My biggest question for the foreign doctors is: How does your medical school compare to say University of Maryland or Johns Hopkins? or other American schools with outstanding reputations? Not every med school is the equal of those we have here in the USA.

dnf777
08-25-2009, 12:22 PM
[QUOTE=BonMallari;489898] these doctors are by and large the cream of the crop of there respective countries.

In some cases, just like here at home, they are not the brightest, but the most privelaged and wealthy, who had their admission to school bought for them by daddy. (think of W and JFKjr, two academic pygmies with impressive scholastic credentials!)