Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: The moderator on 10 Sep 2009 08:26 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4aa822a4$0$23940$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > 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? His story sounds reasonable. That is why Republicans want tort reform and a national market rather than individual rules in each State. Neither of these changes are included in the Democrat Health Care plan. Why?
From: Bobby Knight on 10 Sep 2009 08:52 On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:30:50 -0400, BAR <Screw(a)You.Com> wrote: >William Clark wrote: >> In article <l5uca5d39v9sqb069e2dkooaruvri6es2i(a)4ax.com>, >> Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >>> On 08 Sep 2009 06:30:26 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> His SAT and LSAT scores would be very interesting. You can get a >>>>> pretty good idea of IQ from both of those scores. I wonder why he >>>>> hasn't released them. >>>> For the same reason that he didn't release his birth certificate to >>>> those birther loons: there is no upside to pandering to retards. >>> Actually he did release his birth certificate. >> >> It is in the public records. He didn't have to "release" anything. > >He did not release a copy of his original birth certificate that was >issued at the time of his birth. There is a difference. Read again Bert. It is in the public records, as it has been since he was born. Did McCain, Biden or Palin "release" theirs? Birthers are probably the Most idiotic of all the ultra-right, and that's saying something. BK -- ___, \o | / \ . "Someone likes every shot"! bk
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 10 Sep 2009 13:40 On Sep 9, 5:24 pm, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Carbon" <nob...(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" <nob...(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" <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. > > >> 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? You don't have to be rich to access the US health care system, especially when you are sick. In may caes, a poor person suffering a heart attack with be taken to the same hospital and treated by the same physicians as a rich person. For about $12K per year you can get pretty good health care in the US, and it's not that hard to earn $12K in the US...of course I'm talking about *EARNING* the benefits you use for yourself...because in the end someone has to generate the wealth. You can print up all the money you want, like say Zimbabwe, but you have to have the wealth to back it up. In the US, of course, you have the freedom, and the responsibility associated with being responsible for your own life. You give up one, say responsibility, you lose the other.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 10 Sep 2009 13:44 On Sep 9, 9:05 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:56:34 -0700, "gray asphalt" > > <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Because there a few points that must be in the bill or Obama won't > >sign it. > > Or maybe because each insurance company has paid for some bill for it, > > >If you broke them up individually many of these points might never get > >passed. > > Then those individual parts must not be what the majority of > legislators want. Is that because they are bad? Or is it because > they are owned by Big Medicine? > > >I am sticking to my original prediction that something will be passed, > >but it will be so watered down that nobody will care. > > >___________________ > > >Would Obama refuse to sign a bill that makes it possible > >for health insurance companies to sell in all 50 states? How > >could he say no? It must be the political game. > > Colorado use to proscribe branch banking. They changed this a few > years ago, and most of the local banks got bought up by big holding > companies. I don't see evidence that this was a good thing for the > consumer. > > -- > "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 The rationale for this isn't that complicated. Health care costs are out of control for the government, and they want to control them. The easy way for the government to control health care costs is to take control of the system and dictate those costs, and so that's what they want to do. I don't see health care costs out of control for me, and the overwhelming majority of people who have health insurance are happy with it, so the cost issue isn't an issue for the public so much as for the government.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 10 Sep 2009 13:48
On Sep 9, 9:10 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:04:42 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr > > <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > >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. > > One exception most people will agree with - prevent epidemics. The > other issue that concerns some is when it is cheaper to provide > preventative care than to wait until they need it more. > > Should Medicare have excluded preventative care? > There is no reason to believe that the govt providing preventative care will reduce overall health care costs. It will cause the cost of preventative care to increase, for sure, as rather than you just pay the provider directly, the govt takes your money and then gives some of it to the provider. Of course for the govt, they take your money whether you take the preventative care or not, so when you don't take the preventative care, they get your money for nothing. Also, a person stays really healthy and then gets cancer vs a person who does not keep fit gets cancer...whose treatments do you think will cost more? IMHO the fit person will cost a lot more because they will survive longer...and at least 1/3 of all Americans are going to get cancer. One could argue the same for cardiovascular issues...who costs more, the out of shape overweight person who has a heart attack and dies within 2 years or the fit person who has 5 or 6 heart attacks over a period of 20 years and maybe dies as a result of the 7th? |