Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: gray asphalt on 9 Sep 2009 18:51 "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote in message news:1c24546e-bcd9-4d73-aa1b-5c598fabd313(a)r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... On Sep 6, 6:17 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 22:08:43 +0000, assimilate wrote: > > On 4-Sep-2009, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(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. Let's see. the University of Mississippi Medical Center is a full service hospital. It has everything. There are few such hospitals in Canada, but just counting state university hospitals, there are at least 50 in the US (and many states have more than one university with a big time medical center). Add in all the places like say John's Hopkins and the plethora of top notch private medical centers across the US, and then the high quality clinics like say the Mayo Clinic. On top of that there are many regional hospitals, run of the mill hospitals, but when you have a problem, like we did in the middle of Missouri one time, it's nice to have them there. And add onto that all the local clinics....compared to all that that we have here in the US, health care is highly rationed in Canada, and nowhere near that in level of medical services available because in Canada health care is provided by the govt., and the govt simply cannot deliver that level of service because of the gross inefficiency of govt services. In fact Canada does ration the number of hospital beds per number of people, as well as the number of doctors, among other things. In the US, the public interacts to determine the number of beds, doctors and other services; public health care vs govt health care. I trust the public; you trust the govt, and that's the point of the debate! Of course, if the US goes the single payer route, it will become like Canada with respect to services available. ___________________________________________ This post seems like the kind of thing we really need in this discussion. It makes me want to see a Citizen's Research Committee for Health Care made up of the best and, well you know. Am I being optimistic or could this really happen? P.S. I don't disagree/agree with the points of DinoSr. but reading something well stated with personal experience is awesome. I'll try harder to do the same.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 9 Sep 2009 18:53 On Sep 9, 5:44 pm, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2...(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. I would much rather go the the emergency room of a full service hospital than some clinic to see a nurse practitioner or a PA...for anything. I am willing to pay for it too, but I don't like the idea of it being taken away from the poor, as it will be. The issue to me is not cost. The govt wants to cut it's cost, and it could have made a good faith effort from it's own side, but that was, as we all recall, a joke; they cut essentially nothing...so they hit the providers with the cost reductions and hit us up for more in forms of payment like taxes and premiums. Now you of course can just go to a clinic...but do you think an experienced emergency room MD is more likely to correctly diagnose that persistent cough, or a PA? If you are say a diabetic, would you rather see an endocrinologist who specializes in diabetes if something comes up, or a PA in some clinic? In the experiences I've seen, Family Care MDs are not sufficiently informed on diabetes for even routine care...it's simply become far more complicated with all the treatments and knowledge of the nature of the disease for a GP to handle.
From: Carbon on 9 Sep 2009 18:54 On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:06:27 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote: > On 09 Sep 2009 01:36:57 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(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. > > You almost had me until the last sentence. TANSSAAFL. I didn't mean to imply that it was completely free. But the cost is lower and--this is the important part--you're not subject to shakedowns by greedy hospitals who apparently use magic 8-balls when doing their billing.
From: Carbon on 9 Sep 2009 18:56 On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:37:42 -0700, gray asphalt wrote: > "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 I had food lodged in my esophagus below the windpipe. I could breathe but it was very uncomfortable. It cleared after I spoke to the doctor (for one minute) but before he did anything. It might have been $539 in total. I bought a new set of Goodyear's for the wife's car for less than that. Good ones, too. So: rip-off.
From: Carbon on 9 Sep 2009 19:00
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:24:55 -0700, gray asphalt wrote: > "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 even sure that is true, but what the hell. I'll agree. > 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 It's probably happened. It was the very wealthy this system was designed to accommodate. > 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? Don't people get vaccinations even in the States? It's an obviously sensible idea because it saves down the road. The States does do this, right? It would be so stupid not to. |