Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: Alan Baker on 10 Sep 2009 19:57 In article <4aa99067$0$23946$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > 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. That conclusion is not supported by the facts presented by you. You're comparing 1300 bureaucracies to 1 government one, and that is an obviously nonsense comparison. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Jack Hollis on 10 Sep 2009 20:02 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! What they should do is revoke all the state coverage mandates and allow people to buy as much coverage as they want to. This requires people to have coverage that they neither want or need. Allowing people to buy insurance out of state would have the same effect.
From: Jack Hollis on 10 Sep 2009 20:07 On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:24:55 -0700, "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Let's agree on one thing, The US Has the Best Health >Care System in the World - for the rich. You don't have to be rich to have access to the best health care. I can assure you that UAW members do as well as anyone. Very few people who have insurance in the US are unhappy with the care. The big problem is the price. Of course, it's a bit unrealistic to think that you can have the best health care without paying the most. Even so, the cost of US health care is excessive.
From: Carbon on 10 Sep 2009 20:31 On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:57:30 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > In article <4aa99067$0$23946$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> 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. > > That conclusion is not supported by the facts presented by you. > > You're comparing 1300 bureaucracies to 1 government one, and that is > an obviously nonsense comparison. Come on. 1300 little bitty bureaucracies are part of one giant, incredibly inefficient privately run health insurance bureaucracy. You made the claim earlier that government bureacracies were always less efficient than government ones. You weren't even talking about separate companies. You were comparing system to system. You're wrong. Is it so hard to just admit it?
From: Alan Baker on 10 Sep 2009 20:39
In article <4aa99a4a$0$23974$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:57:30 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <4aa99067$0$23946$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > > > That conclusion is not supported by the facts presented by you. > > > > You're comparing 1300 bureaucracies to 1 government one, and that is > > an obviously nonsense comparison. > > Come on. 1300 little bitty bureaucracies are part of one giant, > incredibly inefficient privately run health insurance bureaucracy. You > made the claim earlier that government bureacracies were always less > efficient than government ones. You weren't even talking about separate > companies. You were comparing system to system. You're wrong. Is it so > hard to just admit it? Nope. That is not a reasonable comparison to make. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg> |