Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: Carbon on 8 Sep 2009 21:44 On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:19:23 -0400, BAR wrote: > William Clark wrote: >> In article <avWdnRXtA44cqTvXnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, BAR >> <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote: >>> William Clark wrote: >>>> In article <1LCdnfuIP_N85TjXnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, BAR >>>> <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Wrong again Billy I attended college. I never received a degree >>>>> but, I attended college. >>>> >>>> "Attended" but got no degree? That puts you on an even lower rung >>>> than Palin. She at least got something after six community colleges >>>> and small universities, albeit a degree in communications. Wow. >>> >>> Me and Bill Gates. >> >> Really. > > Neither of us finished college. Neither did your soulmates in the Special Olympics.
From: Bobby Knight on 8 Sep 2009 21:57 On 09 Sep 2009 01:40:24 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >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? Good for Greg, and that's all he cares. BK
From: Carbon on 8 Sep 2009 21:59 On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:42:44 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > 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: >>>> >>>>> 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. I can only hope that you never encounter the profit-based US healthcare system. I suspect it's much worse than you imagine. The Canadian system has its share of problems, as we both know. But having lived in both places, I believe it is a much better value than the US system. I pay though the nose for health insurance here. And for what? For the privilege of getting ripped off.
From: Alan Baker on 8 Sep 2009 22:15 In article <4aa70bf5$0$5635$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:42:44 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > > 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: > >>>> > >>>>> 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. > > I can only hope that you never encounter the profit-based US healthcare > system. I suspect it's much worse than you imagine. Nothing I said in any way conflicts with that, but you cannot pretend that a single government system will automatically provide the same service for less. > > The Canadian system has its share of problems, as we both know. But > having lived in both places, I believe it is a much better value than > the US system. I pay though the nose for health insurance here. And for > what? For the privilege of getting ripped off. Great. But you're getting drawn into a strawman argument. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: dene on 8 Sep 2009 22:38
"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4aa70788$0$5674$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > > 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? Yes....insurance reform. Don't you think that the private insurers want to have the young, healthy, uninsured in their mix? To do this, reform needs to occur....like what this link describes (notice the source) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32733321/ns/politics-health_care_reform Other measures... 1. Tort reforms 2. One time acceptance for applicants with pre-ex. 3. Tax credits for those who buy/provide insurance for themselves and/or employees. Anything wrong with these measures, Carbs? If these steps are legislated, they will result in the lowering of premiums to all, which is what most Americans want. There are 1300 health insurance companies out there and all are trying to compete without losing their reserves. Fierce competition occured when Medicare Part D was implemented and it will happen again, if Congress levels the playing field, i.e. implement the above measures. -Greg |