Mass.acre!
in [Golf]
|
From: assimilate on 25 Jan 2010 22:39 On 25-Jan-2010, William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > > So someone with no health insurance can just pop in to see a family > > > doctor when they feel something coming on? BS. > > > > sure, pay cash! > > Actually, I think you would have a problem doing that. They are set up > for piece work payment through insurance companies. nonsense, many Docs will actually give you a cash discount beacuse his staff won't spend all the man/hours chasing down the payment. -- bill-o
From: Jim Lovejoy on 25 Jan 2010 23:48 William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in news:clark-94D1DC.17292925012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu: > In article <4b5df698$0$31319$882e0bbb(a)news.ThunderNews.com>, > assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: > >> On 24-Jan-2010, William Clark <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: >> >> > > Personally, I'd be very happy if there were no public schools, >> > > including colleges, no Medicare, no Social Security and no public >> > > housing. Then you can get rid of NPR and the NEA. >> > > >> > > The government has no business spending taxpayer money on any of >> > > these things. >> > >> > And go back to living in mud huts. Good idea. >> >> sorry, but that you think one follows the other puts the quality of >> that Oxford Education in doubt. > > Wiser men that you, over 800 years ago, thought it important for > society to invest in educating its young, and endowed great > universities. I guess you are intent on disproving that notion. He may be intent on disproving it, but what's happening when we follow the borg's advice proves the notion.
From: dene on 26 Jan 2010 01:36 "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:u1jsl55ehtevvnrlb8v4adi4616ehsojrf(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:19:47 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > > > > >Which is true, however in Canada you can't just pop in and get service > >at a given health care provider, even if you do pay cash! > > > That's why they come to the US. Other than that better off Canadians > would have private insurance so they wouldn't have to die waiting for > health care. The Canadian Supreme Court has said that Canadians die > on waiting lists and Canadians should be able to buy private > insurance. > > From the NY Times: > > "The system, providing Canadians with free doctor's services that are > paid for by taxes, has generally been supported by the public, and is > broadly identified with the Canadian national character. > > But in recent years, patients have been forced to wait longer for > diagnostic tests and elective surgery, while the wealthy and well > connected either seek care in the United States or use influence to > jump ahead on waiting lists. > > The court ruled that the waiting lists had become so long that they > violated patients' "liberty, safety and security" under the Quebec > charter, which covers about one-quarter of Canada's population. > > "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care > system are widespread and that in some serious cases, patients die as > a result of waiting lists for public health care," the Supreme Court > ruled. "In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance > is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver > reasonable services." It's interesting that those who support the single pay system do not live in the countries which have it. The Canadian who still lives in Canada, Alan Baker, is not enthusiastic about it. Perhaps this is why. -Greg
From: dene on 26 Jan 2010 02:51 <assimilate(a)borg.org> wrote in message news:4b5e6222$0$30167$882e0bbb(a)news.ThunderNews.com... > > On 25-Jan-2010, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > The advantage of getting your insurance at work is that you can get > > group rates. What you need is portability if you leave or get fired > > from your job, which already exists under COBRA. Obviously, at that > > point, you have to start picking up your employer's contribution. > > I'm sorry but you are discounting, so to speak, the most powerful cost > saving mechanism available, competition. Real competition will come when the > person that needs the policy has to purchase it, or more precisely, when > companies have to compete for the buisness of the policy holder, who, unlike > the HR guy, is using his money to purchase what he feels he needs (again > getting rid of mandates is esstiential here). Current pricing problems stem > in large part from overuse (more demand than supply) largely due to "other > people's money" syndrome. > > -- > bill-o Bill, There is serious competition out there. Mandates are an issue but a greater one are blind underwriting laws and a pool of insured largely consisting of baby boomers and older. -Greg
From: BAR on 26 Jan 2010 07:34
In article <4b5e63ee$0$31151$882e0bbb(a)news.ThunderNews.com>, assimilate(a)borg.org says... > > On 25-Jan-2010, William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > > > > So someone with no health insurance can just pop in to see a family > > > > doctor when they feel something coming on? BS. > > > > > > sure, pay cash! > > > > Actually, I think you would have a problem doing that. They are set up > > for piece work payment through insurance companies. > > nonsense, many Docs will actually give you a cash discount beacuse his staff > won't spend all the man/hours chasing down the payment. Billy, protests, that the bureaucracy must be protected and that any attempts to circumvent the bureaucracy shall be met with great force and effort save the bureaucracy. God save the middle manager! |