mattp

At least Chavez didn't pull the bait and switch like GW did. Remember how he was the guy who could reach accross the aisle and who was not into nation building? All of that fell aside prety quickly after he was elected.

A bit off topic, perhaps, but I have always felt that zipping bags together made both participants colder (though some but not al of my girlfriends before marriage and my wife now may disagree). There is a lot of extra space in the bag, and it is inefficient. Part of the problem lies with the fact that it is difficult to close off the top of the bag around your necks and shoulders, and it helps to use exta clothing - maybe down jackets - as a baffle.

You, Mr. Freak, as a guide, were certainly a tnagential target of what you call his "slam." But I am wondering about your argument here. I worked as an instructor for Outward Bound for several years and I have also guided some significant climbs myself (and I have guided parties on Mount Rainier). I am very impressed (sometimes) with the character or strength or some other trait of those who are guided. We can be very impressed that someone who has relatively little experience or expertise does something cool, but I think that even if you do not feel this way it is not unreasonable for someone to suggest they have more respect for the accomplishment of the climber who led the outing in question or who participated in that leadership.

Persnally, I think you guys are being a bit harsh on Mr. Jamin. He is not slamming anybody - not really. Unlike some others here. (By the way, I agree with the argument that even those wuo may be guided have a right to be proud of their climbs.) I hope our original poster here enjoys his climb. With or without a guide, and whether or not you are in the best shape of your lifetime, Mount Rainier is fantastic! Whatever you do, don't ask about how to pack for your climb unless you want to wade through ten pages of argument about who is a dumbass because they recommend some stupid socks.

I believe that would be the one.

One of my favorites used to be the Library Overhangs at TESC. The balconies on the front of the library are supported by vertical pillars that go at about 5.4, followed by a dangling horizontal hand traverse, 5.5, and a very exciting 5.6 or 5.7 overhang at the end (ratings from ancient memory). It is all very secure, but also very spectacular. The crux is getting someone to let you inside when you top out.

It can be faster for multipitch aid climbing apparently. Besides, teams of three can be more fun. You have somebody to talk to at belay ledges and, if you are carrying much clothing and equipment, one more guy to share the work. Also, if you have a photographer in the group they will be freer to practice their hobby. On shorter alpine rock climbs where you don't necessarily need to rush things, there is no worry that a team of three will be slower. The double rope and auto-locking belay device may speed things, depending on the climbers and the situation, but consider also that you may need to manage belays differently: even more than with a team of two, it may be a good idea to be sure everybody uses a personal leash for belays rather than using their end of the belay rope for an anchor. The personal leash need not be a daisy chain dedicate solely to that purpose but a couple of extra shoulder-length slings that may also turn out to be handy for a rappel retreat or a sling around a tree or horn. I recommend this not only if you may be changing leaders, as Colt45 mentioned, but belay ledge snafu's are more likely with the additional climber.

Apparently, as part of the current planning process in Wenatchee and Okanogan National Forests, the Forest Service is looking at closing campgrounds and picnic areas that don't generate revenue. This might be something some of you want to comment on. Article from Methow Paper on WCC website

And I'm surprised that you - you're a "free market" guy, aren't you? - would be against a "free market" solution to problems with bad doctors. Surely, even with insurance in the equation, Personal Liability lawsuits are much more about personal responsibility and free market than any regulatory reform would be.

Again, I think that is part of THIS discusison Jay. The purported "malpractice crisis" was mentioned in the very first post as being a major contributor to our over expensive and clumsy healthcare system. You continue to assume that liability awards are behind the increases in the costs of malpractice insurance. However, in five minutes on the web or at the library you can figure out that is a highly questionnable conclusion. ( (here's another link - CBS News - the first hit when I typed "malpractice insurance cost" on Google) As to how the threat of malpractice may affect decisions about what specialty to practice or how it may drive unnecessary expense apart from the cost of insurance? It certainly does. Nobody like getting sued, and this included any professional whether they are a doctor, engineer, or for that matter even an attorney. Some are more "risk averse" than others, but all of us develop practices that are intended to protect us from being blamed when things go wrong or whatever.

Actually, I think State control is THE topic of this conversation - at least the stated topic when we started. However, hoping for a response to a post I made earlier today, I'll quote myself: Here, about "malpractice tort reform:"

I'll have to think about that one, Jay, but you may raise a signficant point about the relationship between a single payor system and the personal responsibility of individual providers. However, I'm not sure that there is no responsibility for or a lack of accountability for imprudent or substandard performance if we look at the government directed interstate highway system, public utilities, or other similar institutions of our "socialist" society. If the trial lawyers took it in the shorts due to the adoption of a single payor system, I bet most attorneys and most Amercian citizens could handle that result.

Agreed, Tiaga. Mr. Mayor is not a very impressive "leader."

I think you are on to something here, Mr. High. We have been hearing misinformation for years about the outrageous McDonalds hot coffee verdict because there really are not that many outrageous verdicts to complain about. Read the actual story behind the McDonalds coffee case, and you may or may not conclude the verdict was out of line, but the fact that we are still hearing about it ten years later speaks volumes. I'm not arguing that our legal system is perfect, or that there are no outrageous or unfair results, but I do think it is the best system that we have and those who argue for tort reform have never presented a better alternative.

Jay, You need to read a little more carefully here. First you thougth I was commenting on a "problem" and then you talk about how premiums have to cover payout for an insurance company to make a profit. You seem to have missed the part where I pointed out that, in fact, insurance companies are much like banks in that their profit comes not from the premiuims paid, but from their investing the money they handle. That is why they ALWAYS delay payment of claims, through the use of a multiple redundant claims process even if they don't contest or chip away at the given claim. It is not evil masterminds that sit in the insurance company CEO chair. They are bean counters. And thy have a PR arm and a political lobby that serves their bottom line just like any other large business. There's nothing wrong with that, but you have to take their press releases and op-ed pieces with a grain of salt. And it is not necessary for there to be active "collusion" for the industry to embark on a campaign that is in their interest, but which is not necessarily truthful. As to the other part of your post - that about frivolous claims - I can only say that from my own experience it is far more common for valid claims to be defeated or "compromised" than it is for frivolous claims to bring large awards. I agree that there are problems with using juries of people lacking scientific or medical training, but in fact I bet the deficiency of the training in these "factfinders" weighs in favor of lower liability more than it does in favor of greater. Take a quick poll on any street corner and see how many people will say "most lawsuits are frivolous" as compared to how many will say "Most lawsuits have merit." You are constantly calling me "paranoid" or expressing your disdain for the latte sipping metrosexual. Today, at least, I think you could benefit from sipping another latte and being paranoid enough to at least read and respond to the posts that you are arguing with.

Jay, You asked if I have "solutions" for the problems cited in my post, but in fact the thesis of the argument that I presented there is that there really isn't a big problem: the medical malpractice "crisis" is mostly a political decoy being waved about for political and business purposes. To the extent that this is a "problem," the "solution" lies with bringing real information and rational analysis into popular and public discussion. You may or may not believe or agree with that argument. I'm sure there are some MD's on here that will say "I had to change my practice out of fear of liability" or "I'd never go into a high risk practice like Pediatrics because it has gotten so bad," but I think there is a fairly convincing body of evidence that the arguments I presented are more correct than not. I'd be interested if someone has other information or another way to look at the question. I don't know much about Massachusetts' plan, but it might be a step in the right direction. The fact that, as you point out, few politicians are willing to speak in favor of "single payor" does not in my mind make it a bad idea. And, in fact, I think I've heard that most Americans actually support the idea. Like many other issues in the social development of this nation, whether in the area of civil rights, labor reform, or even prohibition, the politicians may one day find they are driven by popular support for a new policy. Matt

The argument you are looking for, Archy, goes something like this: 1. Insurance companies are largely behind the promotion of the idea that medical malpractice is causing a crisis in public health. They want to reduce the cost of malpractice awards for obvious reasons (these are a big cost to them) but, where liability caps and other measures they have requested have been put in place, the insurance rates that doctors pay have not gone down. 2. Insurance companies are lying about the causes for systematic increases in insurance rates. Multiple studies have indicated the real reason for higher rates that are complained about in this "malpractice crisis" is a declining return on investment. Most insurance company profit comes from investment, not from the premiums paid. 3. Medical malpractice lawsuits and awards are actually fairly consistent or dropping, not increasing, and costs related to malpractice are actually a tiny percent of the cost of operating a medical practice. Statistically, there really has not been any huge spike in lawsuits and malpractice insurance is something like 3 pecent of a doctor's overhead, and 1 percent of the overall system costs. 4. Most malpractice is caused by a small number of doctors, and the "system" is not adequately correcting this situation. Most people who complain about the medical malpractice crisis are the same people who generally argue that regulation and government bureaucracy is bad. However, where bad doctors are licensed to hurt their patients, we either need more regulation and government or oversite, or we have to let the "market" deal with the situation through allowing them to be held accountable for what they do. Here's more info for you: http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/RisingCostOfMedicalMalpracticeInsurance.htm There are probably better sites out there, but I found this as the first or second hit when I typed "medical malpractice cost" on Google. --- As far as "single payor" goes, I would much rather have the government running the system than insurance companies but then again I am one of those people who thinks the Post Office or those who built the Interstate highway system do a pretty good job and the insurance companies are not looking out for my interest.

I'm not discouraging a get acquainted with altitude trip, but I believe that if you read much literature on the topic you will find that perforance at altitude can be inconsistent and people often do well on one trip and poorly on another. Enjoy a Colorado vacation but don't count on the fact that if you seem to adjust to the altitude well (or poorly) you will expierience the same on Rainier.

So, Archy, I'm not clear here. Are you ridiculing me because I suggest that guns injure more people than they protect, or because I allude to the fact that even if you agree with this premise, the "solution" to the "problem" is not clear? Or maybe you meant something entirely different?

What about Modern Times? A "moderate" at 5.8, it overhangs nearly 30 feet in 30 vertical, if I am properly interpreting the photo's. Has anybody here done this one?

People are funny that way, Archy. They sometiems react kinda strongly when they think things are happening that that they don't approve of. Maybe you think it is no big deal when somebody gets shot but it is a big deal when a newscaster reveals that the woman who attended a party where she clamied that she was raped was a stripper? We don't need to rehash another thread, but my point is that different people have different "hot button issues." No doubt, the guy was an asshole or a freak or whatever you might want to call him...and I somewhat buy the argument that guns don't kill people but people do. But it is fact that we have more murders than other first world nations, is it not? And guns are used in many if not most of those murders, no? I'm not sure there is a practical way to get from here to there, but I think we'd ALL be much safer if there were a lot less guns in circulation.

Whitechuck can be a good winter climb, with enough exposure on the Standard Route to be exciting but not really technical; also, it is all south facing so it tends to be relatively safe much of the time. The approach road, via Dan Creek out of Darrington, is popular as a snowplay access so although it is not plowed you may be able to get fairly far in there.

Say what? I offered a few comments on the matter and so did you. My post here responded directly to your inquiry with reference to your prior comment. This is not ad hominem.

Mt. Persis is kind of cool for a hiking destination and would offer little avalanche danger.