Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 10 Sep 2009 13:57 On Sep 9, 8:54 pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:09:21 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr > > <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > >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! > > When someone fails to have medical maintenance, we often end up paying > far more later. It's not obvious to me that your proposal will be a > net gain or a net loss to our wallets. I don't see that. A heart transplant is a heart transplant, for example. How is it cheaper for one person than another. I don't see that a person who engages in preventative care is going to be somehow cheaper to deliver health care to than one who doesn't.
From: Alan Baker on 10 Sep 2009 14:08 In article <8ef51232-4e37-46c7-9539-779791d64b80(a)r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > On Sep 9, 8:54�pm, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:09:21 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr > > > > <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > >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! > > > > When someone fails to have medical maintenance, we often end up paying > > far more later. � It's not obvious to me that your proposal will be a > > net gain or a net loss to our wallets. > > > I don't see that. A heart transplant is a heart transplant, for > example. How is it cheaper for one person than another. > > I don't see that a person who engages in preventative care is going to > be somehow cheaper to deliver health care to than one who doesn't. Really? Seriously? Which is less expensive: changing the oil in your car regularly, or never doing so -- never even topping it up, and eventually having to replace a seized engine? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Alan Baker on 10 Sep 2009 14:56 In article <O%1qm.171984$O23.22137(a)newsfe11.iad>, "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > news:alangbaker-0B893B.21425609092009(a)news.shawcable.com... > > In article <K2Wpm.122739$nL7.75473(a)newsfe18.iad>, > > "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> "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-matc > >> > h-c > >> > anada-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) > > > > Ummm... > > > > In Cuba, who exactly is providing the stats? > > Who would have to be for you to accept them? It would help if it wasn't the Cuban government. Socialist "paradises" are not known for their... ...candor... ...in such matters. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Carbon on 10 Sep 2009 18:40 On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:57:15 -0400, BAR wrote: > Howard Brazee wrote: >> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:09:21 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr >> <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >> >>> 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! >> >> When someone fails to have medical maintenance, we often end up >> paying far more later. It's not obvious to me that your proposal >> will be a net gain or a net loss to our wallets. > > Liberty. > > What right do you have to compel someone to under go a medical > procedure they do not want? Compel? I don't think your heroes on talk radio are explaining it to you correctly.
From: Carbon on 10 Sep 2009 18:51
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:29:50 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > 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. Your point was that in practice government bureacracies are far heavier than business bureaucracies. My brother-in-law's experience with the US healthcare system was the opposite mainly due to the requirement of having to deal with dozens of different insurance companies. In the Canadian system there is only one type of paperwork. |