From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Sep 9, 5:03 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:15:53 -0700, Dinosaur_Sr wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 8:36 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> Correct! Your understanding of the concept of insurance is most
> excellent.

....and that's one thing I don't like about current health insurance
plans...they take money for preventative care...ordinary Doctor
visits, that people should pay for themselves. The way it is now we
all pay for the idiots who have to see their doctor once a month. Let
'em pay for that themselves. They are very sneaky about how they get
to the doctors office you know. They have a long history of "chronic
illnesses"!
From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Sep 9, 5:08 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:15:53 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr
>
> <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote:
> >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.
>
> As we do in the U.S.
>
> --
> "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

Not necessarily. In some cases yes, in others no. A real reform would
be to just facilitate the big ticket items through insurance, and not
force people to pay for routine things through "insurance". You can
pay for those things yourself!
From: gray asphalt on

<assimilate(a)borg.org> wrote in message
news:4aa432ea$0$16486$882e0bbb(a)news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> On 4-Sep-2009, "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Will you explain what the difference is between
>> "rationing" and the way things are done now? -
>
> Now coverage is a matter of contract: what the policy says it will cover
> and
> if one party does not live up to the terms then in can be brought before
> the
> authorities to settle. Rationing socialist style is where one party is the
> state and who is going to arbitrate a dispute between you and the state?
> Why
> the state. Wonder how that's going to work out?
>
> --
> bill-o

That's a great point. I'm not sure that people are having
that much better luck against the health care insurance
companies. And most people don't seem to want to sue
medicare...

I wonder though ... if enough of us signed an intent letter
or deposited money in an account for the purpose of saying
"Here's some good faith money. When someone creates a
bank or a health care company or another stock exchange
that meets the following standards:
1
2
3
Then I'll move my money, buy my insurance and pressure
the people that manage my money and the retirement funds
I'm in - to move my money to a responsible, reasonable
corporation."

I'd like to know what you'd all put as requirments for a newly
formed health care corporation based on promises from the
public to buy from it.


From: gray asphalt on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4aa44e7c$0$4939$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 16:52:09 -0700, dene wrote:
>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:4aa44318$0$4975$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 22:08:43 +0000, assimilate wrote:
>>> > On 4-Sep-2009, "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Will you explain what the difference is between "rationing" and
>>> >> the way things are done now? -
>>> >
>>> > Now coverage is a matter of contract: what the policy says it will
>>> > cover and if one party does not live up to the terms then in can be
>>> > brought before the authorities to settle. Rationing socialist style
>>> > is where one party is the state and who is going to arbitrate a
>>> > dispute between you and the state? Why the state. Wonder how that's
>>> > going to work out?
>>>
>>> "Rationing socialist style." I like that. Nice aroma.
>>>
>>> In your opinion, is more healthcare rationing done in Canada or the
>>> US? I'm always interested in the intersection between reality and
>>> ideology, so I'm genuinely curious if you'll be able to bring
>>> yourself to concede the obvious.
>>
>> Rationing is done more in Canada. What Bill describes as the contract
>> system is dead one straight....and it correlates to my 20 years in the
>> biz. Furthermore, there is accountability if the contract is broken.
>> Conversely, there is accountability if the contract/policy was
>> obtained on a fraudulent basis.
>
> Everyone in Canada has healthcare. Millions in the US do not. Just on
> that blindingly obvious fact alone, there is way more rationing in the
> States.

Let's agree on one thing, The US Has the Best Health
Care System in the World - for the rich. I'm not saying
the superrich can go out and buy a kidney or liver in
a thrid world country and have it installed on the down
low but there sure are a lot of MRIs for some, while
others can't get vaccinations. I don't mean to demean
the hard working investment bankers.

If you don't believe that there aren't vaccinations for
the poor, then would you agree that that should be a
part of universal care?


From: gray asphalt on

"Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message
news:6ll8a5hs96dg8am3hjc1mcv7urkvpdufap(a)4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 17:23:34 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Everyone in Canada has rationed healthcare and heavy taxation to pay for
>>it.
>
> Is how we pay for our health care particularly important? Canadians
> spend less on health care than we do. My wallet doesn't care what
> accounting column the deduction is marked to.
>
> It's arguable whether their care is better or worse than ours - but
> implying theirs costs more than ours just because of how the money is
> withheld from my net check doesn't work.
>
>>The elite have instant healthcare if they cross the border.
>
> Yep. The wealthy will always have superior health care, no matter
> where they live.
>
> --
> "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

We always use Canadian health care to compare.
We won't have a single payer apparently and
France's is the best period. Does anyone have good
facts to dispute France's plan?

Does anyone even know anyone who has posted the
details of France's or any government's plan? This
happens in state issues. I worked on CPS issues for
a few years and it was difficult to even get information
about what other states were doing.