From: Alan Baker on 8 Sep 2009 20:45 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 8 Sep 2009 21:36 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 8 Sep 2009 21:40 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 8 Sep 2009 21:42 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 8 Sep 2009 21:42
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. |