Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: Carbon on 9 Sep 2009 19:08 On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:37:07 -0700, DenaliDuffer 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? >> >> > 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. Sadly your sensible argument is unpalatable to disciples of free market capitalism.
From: gray asphalt on 9 Sep 2009 20:23 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4aa832a4$0$19034$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > 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. That was at an Emergency Room? Aren't Goodyears the ones that had all of the problems?
From: Carbon on 9 Sep 2009 20:37 On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:23:59 -0700, gray asphalt wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4aa832a4$0$19034$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> 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. > > That was at an Emergency Room? Yes. I'm still waiting for one of these free market ideologues to explain how the bill was so high when big healthcare is competing with itself night and day to bring me the lowest possible prices.
From: Alan Baker on 9 Sep 2009 21:29 In article <4aa822a4$0$23940$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > 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? No. But his experience doesn't address my point. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Howard Brazee on 9 Sep 2009 21:52
On 09 Sep 2009 22:01:53 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >That the dysfunctional US system needs to be changed is a given for most >sane people. Some of the proposals out there propose making the US system >more like the Canadian system, to varying degrees. So, it would seem like >the Canadian system is relevant to the US healthcare discussion. The proposal I've read seem to be more designed by our insurance companies than emulating any other system. -- "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 |