Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: Carbon on 8 Sep 2009 22:38 On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:15:56 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > 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. My own guess, and I admit that it's a guess, is that with only one bureaucracy there will be less overall expense than there is now. There are something like 1300 insurance companies here and billing is a nightmare. Every hospital, every clinic, has staff devoted to dealing with insurance companies and nothing else. My brother-in-law is an MD who practiced in Oregon for a while. One of the reasons he left was because of all the paperwork and hassle. He says he makes about 40% less than he did in the States, but there isn't as much bureaucracy so he doesn't have to pay for as much staff. He also doesn't have to pay malpractice insurance, which is another massive expense. >> 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. How so?
From: Alan Baker on 9 Sep 2009 00:02 In article <4aa7153a$0$5645$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:15:56 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > > 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. > > My own guess, and I admit that it's a guess, is that with only one > bureaucracy there will be less overall expense than there is now. There > are something like 1300 insurance companies here and billing is a > nightmare. Every hospital, every clinic, has staff devoted to dealing > with insurance companies and nothing else. Once again, that sounds very well in theory, but in practice *government* bureaucracies are far heavier than business ones. > > My brother-in-law is an MD who practiced in Oregon for a while. One of > the reasons he left was because of all the paperwork and hassle. He says > he makes about 40% less than he did in the States, but there isn't as > much bureaucracy so he doesn't have to pay for as much staff. He also > doesn't have to pay malpractice insurance, which is another massive > expense. > > >> 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. > > How so? Because this is about whether there should be change in U.S. health care, and it is a moot point whether the Canadian system is good, bad or sideways. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 9 Sep 2009 13:55 On Sep 8, 5:02 pm, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > Let's all pause for a moment while he adjusts that almighty chip on his > shoulder. What is truly absurd is your belief that I have some ship on my shoulder here. If you have a problem with what just about everyone in this business thinks of deadwood faculty...too bad for you. In any event, I was just reporting what the guy said...if all you can do with a masters degree is get a job that pays $60,000, it's not really worth the effort. You have a chip on your shoulder on that, tough for you!
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 9 Sep 2009 13:59 On Sep 8, 5:39 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:32:18 -0700, dene wrote: > > "Carbon" <nob...(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" <nob...(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 > >> >> > <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > >> >> >>On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:03:59 -0400, Jack Hollis > >> >> >><xslee...(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? You think people can get heath care from the govt. that costs only $300.00 per person? That's absurd! Govt. has always been far more inefficient than the private sector with respect to provision of services. even in the current debate, they want to cut costs they, the govt. pays, not the costs we the taxpayer pays. There is no hint that this grand scheme will cost the public less, and certainly no discussion of such. Zero refutation of accusations that this will cost the public more, and the public will get less medical service in return. Anyone with any sort of sense knows it has to cost more...much more. If the govt can show how service to the people will not be reduced, they might get somewhere with this thing. Again, JMHO, the dems will pass this thing, and it will be a disaster.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 9 Sep 2009 14:08
On Sep 8, 7:17 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:4aa6dd13$0$23936$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > > > On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:32:18 -0700, dene wrote: > > > "Carbon" <nob...(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" <nob...(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 > > >> >> > <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > > >> >> >>On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:03:59 -0400, Jack Hollis > > >> >> >><xslee...(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? > > 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. > > -Greg American govt is far more efficient than Canadian govt. Lat time I got a driver's license renewed I went for a commercial license. It took 45 minutes from the time I got there in a large facility in west Jackson. I cannot recall a time in Canada where it took less than 2 hours. It took me maybe 15 minutes to get a SS card. In Canada, I lost my SI card, and it took me all day to get a new one. With private business, only the seller and the buyer have a hand in the pie. In govt, you get the buyer and seller totally divorced from each other, with numerous layers of various govt agencies all looking to improve their standing in the hierarchy. With health care you will need a new federal bureaucracy and involvement of the current IRS among others. And that does not even bring to bear that the state governments have residual authority under the US constitution, and do not necessarily have to go for the fed programme. One cool thing is that it could well be deemed unconstitutional to require people to have health care...it's not like requiring auto insurance because driving is a privilege, not a right. Agsain, JMHO, but as with most of these boondoggle programmes, it will screw the poor, who will get "primary care" but not much more. Triage by a PA in a clinic as opposed to the emergency room of a major hospital. |