Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: Alan Baker on 10 Sep 2009 18:53 In article <4aa982dc$0$23953$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > 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. No, that's wrong. His experience is that *his* workload was less. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Carbon on 10 Sep 2009 18:57 On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:52:59 +0000, Bobby Knight wrote: > 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. The Republicans need the support of centrists or they will lose in 2012. But they keep funding these ridiculous astroturf campaigns. It's funny.
From: Carbon on 10 Sep 2009 19:48 On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:53:32 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > In article <4aa982dc$0$23953$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> 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: >>>> >>>>> 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. > > No, that's wrong. > > His experience is that *his* workload was less. Correct. His experience was an MD in both the US and Canadian systems. According to Greg, there are something like 1300 insurance health insurance providers in the States. It is not like my brother-in-law was one unlucky doctor in Oregon. The largely private US health insurance bureaucracy is inefficient (read: more expensive) for doctors, for patients, for everybody. It's a mess. It is not always true in practice that government bureaucracies are less efficient that business bureaucracies.
From: Jack Hollis on 10 Sep 2009 19:55 On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:08:34 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >One cool thing is that it could well be deemed unconstitutional to >require people to have health care...it's not like requiring auto >insurance because driving is a privilege, not a right. Actually, I was required to buy health insurance when I first joined the work force in 1965. I've been paying the premiums for the last 44 years. I'm still two years away from being eligible for benefits. It's called Medicare. Anyone who voluntarily buy health insurance like that would have to be an idiot.
From: Jack Hollis on 10 Sep 2009 19:56
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:34:25 -0700 (PDT), DenaliDuffer <denaliduffer(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Please answer just this one question. What value do insurance >companies add to health care? They pool risk. |