Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: Carbon on 10 Sep 2009 20:47 On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:39:42 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > 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 bureaucracies 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 bureaucracies 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. It was a comparison that you made. See the first quoted post above.
From: Alan Baker on 10 Sep 2009 21:01 In article <4aa99e1f$0$23937$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:39:42 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > > 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 bureaucracies 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 bureaucracies 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. > > It was a comparison that you made. See the first quoted post above. "Once again, that sounds very well in theory, but in practice *government* bureaucracies are far heavier than business ones." Where is that a comparison of a system to system? Note: this subthread started when you suggested that the government's plan would have lower overhead than a *single* plan; i.e. that the cost of the plan per capita would be less for the same service delivered. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
From: Howard Brazee on 10 Sep 2009 21:27 On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:40:24 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: >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. And we pay. >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. Someone has to produce that wealth. Arguing whether we should pay for the poor is missing the point - we are doing so now. >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. We pay for the poor now - expensive hospital care. -- "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
From: Howard Brazee on 10 Sep 2009 21:29 On 10 Sep 2009 22:57:39 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >The Republicans need the support of centrists or they will lose in 2012. >But they keep funding these ridiculous astroturf campaigns. It's funny. That isn't their primary concern - the primary concern of most politicians is getting reelected. Currently that is very expensive, and they spend half of their time getting money. When lobbyists offer them money now, future strategies get put aside. Follow the money. -- "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
From: Carbon on 10 Sep 2009 21:28
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:01:06 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > In article <4aa99e1f$0$23937$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:39:42 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: >>> 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 bureaucracies 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 bureaucracies 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. >> >> It was a comparison that you made. See the first quoted post above. > > "Once again, that sounds very well in theory, but in practice > *government* bureaucracies are far heavier than business ones." > > Where is that a comparison of a system to system? > > Note: this subthread started when you suggested that the government's > plan would have lower overhead than a *single* plan; i.e. that the > cost of the plan per capita would be less for the same service > delivered. Really? The discussion you jumped in on was about the cost of the US vs Canadian healthcare systems. I argued that having automatic payroll deductions would lower the overall cost. You argued that the least expensive solution was not always the best. I agreed with that. Then you said this: "Simply waving your hand a pretending that a government system will automatically provide the same service but charge less is not credible." System to system. |