Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
in [Golf]
|
From: Alan Baker on 10 Sep 2009 21:32 In article <4aa9a7d8$0$23941$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > 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. Government system compared to individual plan costs as presented by you: "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?" IOW, you imagined that somehow a government plan would automatically be more efficient than any *individual* private plan. It was only after that that you aggregated all the different insurance plans together. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Carbon on 10 Sep 2009 21:41 On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:32:12 -0700, Alan Baker wrote: > In article <4aa9a7d8$0$23941$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >>> 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. > > Government system compared to individual plan costs as presented by > you: > > "Say you have the choice or paying $500, $600 or $700. Or a flat, one > size fits all payment of $300. Which would you take?" > > IOW, you imagined that somehow a government plan would automatically > be more efficient than any *individual* private plan. > > It was only after that that you aggregated all the different insurance > plans together. Wrong. I was talking about the US system as it exists now, where you can get charged some arbitrary expensive amount for the same basic service. As opposed to the Canadian system, which is on average 40% cheaper.
From: gray asphalt on 11 Sep 2009 02:48 "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message news:alangbaker-9E1286.11562810092009(a)news.shawcable.com... > In article <O%1qm.171984$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> I haven't heard anyone else question the stats but there is doubt. I wonder if there is as much doubt about our, US, stats. If it were wartime stats about "collateral damage" ... well we aren't known for candor either.
From: Alan Baker on 11 Sep 2009 02:54 In article <1pmqm.115$tG1.69(a)newsfe22.iad>, "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>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-m > >> >> > atc > >> >> > 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. > > > I haven't heard anyone else question the > stats but there is doubt. I wonder if there > is as much doubt about our, US, stats. If > it were wartime stats about "collateral > damage" ... well we aren't known for > candor either. True... But it's much harder for free society to lie successfully. :) -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: gray asphalt on 11 Sep 2009 03:00
"Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote in message news:aa28fcdb-bd53-4c8d-a14f-002c6488676a(a)k39g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... 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. ________________ I've worked in ER and I don't beleive that. First the ambulances route the calls and if one hospital is taking patients they go to another. I would bet that poor people, far more often than not, coming from a poor neighborhood end up in the poorer hospitals. Haven't seen a study. If you think a patient whose personal physician calls in to ER to express his concern for his patient ... that he gets the same care as someone who is picked up off the street ... I'm not saying that a drug addict who is shooting at people should get the same care as Warren Buffet but it just isn't equal ... and mabe it's Mr. Hedgefund manager getting better care than someone like that black man, a doctor who invented transfusions (or something ironic like that) died after not being admitted to an ER because of his race. It was a Paul Harvey story a few years ago. |