Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 9 Sep 2009 14:15 On Sep 8, 8:36 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:44:28 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <4aa6dd13$0$23936$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > 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? > > > 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. Wrong! In Canada you pay for the health care whether you see the doctor or not. The money is taken out of your income before it even gets to you.
From: DenaliDuffer on 9 Sep 2009 15:34 On Aug 12, 10:18 pm, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > On 12-Aug-2009, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm an Obama supporter but ... > > > 1. Why do all of the reforms have to be contained in one huge bill? > > Because the real purpose is not reform in the true sense of the word, but > expanding gov't control? > > -- > bill-o Please answer just this one question. What value do insurance companies add to health care?
From: Alan Baker on 9 Sep 2009 15:55 In article <e51916ef-c09b-4c18-9caf-29e49448618b(a)h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, DenaliDuffer <denaliduffer(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 12, 10:18�pm, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > > On 12-Aug-2009, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I'm an Obama supporter but ... > > > > > 1. Why do all of the reforms have to be contained in one huge bill? > > > > Because the real purpose is not reform in the true sense of the word, but > > expanding gov't control? > > > > -- > > bill-o > > Please answer just this one question. What value do insurance > companies add to health care? What value to print brokers add to printing? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Carbon on 9 Sep 2009 17:48 On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:02:06 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > 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. Can I ask how you know this, in practice? Because my brother-in-law actually did practice medicine both in the US and in Canada, and he says the US system is much more expensive for doctors because a) he needed more staff to deal with insurance companies, and b) he also had to pay large sums for malpractice insurance. Was his experience wrong?
From: Howard Brazee on 9 Sep 2009 18:04
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:02:16 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> No doubt that the cost of treating the uninsured is passed on to the >>> rest of us one way or the other. >> >>"Us" being the responsible insured. >> >>-Greg > >Yes, and the employers who pay all, or most, of the insurance costs. When the employer or the government pays - we pay. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |