From: gray asphalt on

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message
news:llsca598ctbve42qflm88uroh0t2hlat8e(a)4ax.com...
> On 08 Sep 2009 06:27:14 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:49:10 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
>>> On 07 Sep 2009 16:21:09 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If everyone in the US has access to the world's best healthcare, why
>>>> is the average life expectancy so much lower than Canada's? Hmmm?
>>>
>>> Life expectancy is a lifestyle issue. You can have the best health
>>> care but if most the population have unhealthy lifestyles, that's not
>>> the fault of health care. My doctor tells me to lose weight and stop
>>> smoking cigars every time I see her. I admire her persistence.
>>
>>Uh huh. You're actually suggesting that lifestyle differences between
>>the US and Canada are so radically different that they alone account the
>>dramatic difference in life expectancy? Because that seems like quite a
>>stretch in a continent with similar language, culture, diet, etc.
>>Especially when all you offer in support is bullshit anecdotal evidence.
>
> 2003 figures
>
> Obesity Rate (Male) US 31.1 % Canada 17.0 %
> Obesity Rate (Female) US 32.2 % Canada 19.0 %
>
> http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/10/02/health-care-system-grudge-match-canada-vs-us/
>
>
> Any more questions?
>
> You're not doing too well with this one. May I suggest infant
> mortality rate?

Ok, how come the infant mortality rate is lower in
Cuba than the US? (Is it still? anyway)


From: DenaliDuffer on
On Sep 9, 2:04 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2:34 pm, DenaliDuffer <denaliduf...(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?
>
> Easy question, and I have answered it here before..so here it goes
> again!
>
> Insurance companies organize people into a pool whereby the risk of a
> substantial financial burden is spread amongst a number of
> individuals. Pretty simple.
>
> One thing we don't need from insurance companies is "preventative
> care". Individuals can pay for that themselves, although I have no
> problem subsidizing poor people seeking such care. We don't need the
> govt top provide preventative care either. In both cases the middle
> man of the insurance company or the govt adds a needless cost to the
> exercise. It's cheaper to walk in and pay the provider directly than
> to pay the govt or pay an insurance company to pay the provider for
> you.

Wouldn't the economy of scale kick in if every citizen was in the same
pool? Only a single payer system could take advantage of this
scale.. The Govt. needs no profit; an insurance company would have to
profit.
From: gray asphalt on

"Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4aa706b9$0$5680$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com...
> 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.\

What kind of doctor? Was it in a hospital ER? I've never
had to pay over $200 for a doctor visit that didn't include
a bunch of tests or x-rays ...


From: gray asphalt on

"Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote in message
news:82a75b07-b597-48e0-af7d-987005738118(a)h13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 7, 7:00 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> 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.

How is health care reform going to cause the costs of emergency room
treatment for *anyone* to be reduced...unless you ration care?
_________________________________________

If someone goes to a primary care physician or a PA or a
registered nurse working under an MD or DO, they might
get treatment that would keep the ERs from being so crowded
and eliminate the complications of people not being seen as
soon as they could in ERs. There wouldn't be as much need
for staff and overtime could be cut down. ERs have to charge
a bunch because they are equipped for serious traumas,
something quikcares and GPs don't have to have ...

Maybe I don't understand your question, though.


From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Sep 9, 5:37 pm, DenaliDuffer <denaliduf...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2:04 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 2:34 pm, DenaliDuffer <denaliduf...(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?
>
> > Easy question, and I have answered it here before..so here it goes
> > again!
>
> > Insurance companies organize people into a pool whereby the risk of a
> > substantial financial burden is spread amongst a number of
> > individuals. Pretty simple.
>
> > One thing we don't need from insurance companies is "preventative
> > care". Individuals can pay for that themselves, although I have no
> > problem subsidizing poor people seeking such care. We don't need the
> > govt top provide preventative care either. In both cases the middle
> > man of the insurance company or the govt adds a needless cost to the
> > exercise. It's cheaper to walk in and pay the provider directly than
> > to pay the govt or pay an insurance company to pay the provider for
> > you.
>
> Wouldn't the economy of scale kick in if every citizen was in the same
> pool?  Only a single payer system could take advantage of this
> scale..  The Govt. needs no profit; an insurance company would have to
> profit.

The problem with govt is that it acts in the interest of govt., and is
beyond regulation. When people in govt serve their own self interest,
as people do, harm must always result. IMHO, this is why govt is so
inefficient; every participant in govt has it's own axe to grind and
must be served one way or another.

There is nothing wrong with taking a profit for providing a service.
When the public acts in it's own interest, all can benefit, the
private businesspeople and their customers.

The fact of history has been that govt bureaucracy always winds up
imposing a far greater cost than do businesses. History has also
proven that govts can abuse the powers we give them, and this one is
one that can really been abused. And it;'s not like we don't have
people in power now talking about means of population regulation
including forced sterilization, which has been done in the US in the
past, and placing an economic value on the lives of citizens.

Bottom line to me is that health care is a service we can provide for
ourselves. If we go the govt route, we will pay more and get less. Our
system will degrade to that of Europe; which means no more specialty
clinics, you will not be able to have a specialist as your primary
care physician and you will have little to no say in the type of
policy you have; it will be set by the govt and you will have to take
it.

They will squeeze providers with ever reducing payments and will tap
payers with higher and higher taxes/premiums, as they have elsewhere.
In short, it will be a disaster among people who are accustomed to
better.

Health care should be something you earn, like everything else. Yes,
help out the poor, but people who choose to allocate their resources
to big cars, big houses and big stock portfolios can suffer the
consequences without the help of the rest of society.