From: Alan Baker on
In article <qgsda59thh0t9c1nct8341gbc57bpsf97n(a)4ax.com>,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:37:59 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Plonking Hollis is your prerogative, of course, but I don't see any of these
> >behaviors in him. He presents reasonable arguments and citations. What's
> >wrong with that? As the leading liberal in this bunch, shouldn't you be the
> >most tolerant?
> >
> >-Greg
>
>
> Carbon seems like a nice fellow and I hope he reconsiders, but he is
> getting the short end of the Canada vs, US health care argument. To
> tell you the truth, I could do a better job supporting his side than
> he's doing, but in the end, the US just has better health care.

No actually, he's not.

Because the argument isn't "Canada vs US health care". That's just your
strawman.

>
> The major problem with US health care is the cost. It's similar to
> Cuban cigars. They're the best, no doubt about that, but are they
> really worth 3 or 4 times as much as a top quality Dominican?
>
> It's bang for the buck where the US health care system is weak.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Carbon on
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:44:28 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <4aa6dd13$0$23936$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:32:18 -0700, dene wrote:
>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4aa6d257$0$23955$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:29:06 -0700, dene wrote:
>>>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4aa5f973$0$23958$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:00:24 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:01:49 -0600, Howard Brazee
>>>>>>> <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:03:59 -0400, Jack Hollis
>>>>>>>> <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is incorrect. Millions in the US don't have health
>>>>>>>>> insurance. Everyone in the US has access to health care.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And we pay through the nose when the uninsured get treated.
>>>>>>>> But some people would rather pay more, as long as they can
>>>>>>>> avert their eyes from the fact that the wrong people are
>>>>>>>> getting help.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No doubt that the cost of treating the uninsured is passed on to
>>>>>>> the rest of us one way or the other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which (obviously) is why it's cheaper to just give everyone
>>>>>> health insurance and be done with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Give?"
>>>>
>>>> Everyone pays in with payroll deductions, everyone benefits. Those
>>>> who can't pay in have it provided. It's way cheaper that way.
>>>
>>> Great. More taxes, especially for the self employed who pay all the
>>> payroll taxes. Also, no choices. A one plan that fits all with a
>>> huge government agency handling the $$.
>>>
>>> Thanks....but I'd rather have the worst of the present system than
>>> what you prescribed.
>>
>> Oh yes, the choice canard. Say you have the choice or paying $500,
>> $600 or $700. Or a flat, one size fits all payment of $300. Which
>> would you take?
>
> Sorry, but you know (or should know) it's not that simple.
>
> The lowest price is not always the best choice.

Point taken. However, the assumption above that the different fees were
for the same service. For example, I was recently charged $520 or so for
speaking to a doctor for about a minute, who provided no medical care. I
suppose this bill may be in line with normal US hospital markup. I'm not
an expert on this particular form of corruption, but it does seem an
outrageous rip-off to me. Especially considering what the cost in Canada
and in nearly every other first world country--$0.00.
From: Carbon on
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:17:56 -0700, dene wrote:
> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4aa6dd13$0$23936$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>> Oh yes, the choice canard. Say you have the choice or paying $500,
>> $600 or $700. Or a flat, one size fits all payment of $300. Which
>> would you take?
>
> Choice, regardless of cost. I do not believe any government agency is
> more efficient than a private insurer, so your numbers are fantasy at
> best.
>
> I understand your numbers work in Canada but you pay much higher taxes
> than I'm accustomed to...or ever want to pay.
>
> Furthermore, we've agreed that the USA's government would be much less
> efficient than Canada's in this regard. Given this, single payor in
> this country is simply not an option.
>
> Public option...maybe....if insurance reform doesn't work.

Insurance reform? By which you mean big insurance writes its own
legislation, correct? How do you imagine that's going to turn out?
From: Alan Baker on
In article <4aa706b9$0$5680$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:44:28 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <4aa6dd13$0$23936$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:32:18 -0700, dene wrote:
> >>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:4aa6d257$0$23955$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> >>>> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:29:06 -0700, dene wrote:
> >>>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:4aa5f973$0$23958$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> >>>>>> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:00:24 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:01:49 -0600, Howard Brazee
> >>>>>>> <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:03:59 -0400, Jack Hollis
> >>>>>>>> <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is incorrect. Millions in the US don't have health
> >>>>>>>>> insurance. Everyone in the US has access to health care.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And we pay through the nose when the uninsured get treated.
> >>>>>>>> But some people would rather pay more, as long as they can
> >>>>>>>> avert their eyes from the fact that the wrong people are
> >>>>>>>> getting help.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No doubt that the cost of treating the uninsured is passed on to
> >>>>>>> the rest of us one way or the other.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Which (obviously) is why it's cheaper to just give everyone
> >>>>>> health insurance and be done with it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Give?"
> >>>>
> >>>> Everyone pays in with payroll deductions, everyone benefits. Those
> >>>> who can't pay in have it provided. It's way cheaper that way.
> >>>
> >>> Great. More taxes, especially for the self employed who pay all the
> >>> payroll taxes. Also, no choices. A one plan that fits all with a
> >>> huge government agency handling the $$.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks....but I'd rather have the worst of the present system than
> >>> what you prescribed.
> >>
> >> Oh yes, the choice canard. Say you have the choice or paying $500,
> >> $600 or $700. Or a flat, one size fits all payment of $300. Which
> >> would you take?
> >
> > Sorry, but you know (or should know) it's not that simple.
> >
> > The lowest price is not always the best choice.
>
> Point taken. However, the assumption above that the different fees were
> for the same service. For example, I was recently charged $520 or so for
> speaking to a doctor for about a minute, who provided no medical care. I
> suppose this bill may be in line with normal US hospital markup. I'm not
> an expert on this particular form of corruption, but it does seem an
> outrageous rip-off to me. Especially considering what the cost in Canada
> and in nearly every other first world country--$0.00.

No, I'm sorry.

Simply waving your hand a pretending that a government system will
automatically provide the same service but charge less is not credible.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Carbon on
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:14:25 -0400, BAR wrote:

> I do believe that Obama's undergraduate grades are not as good as
> Bush's. I do not believe that the WH will ever release them. But, a
> disgruntled Columbia clerk may.

You believe, but you have no evidence. Crackpot.