Mass.acre!
in [Golf]
|
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 29 Jan 2010 10:59 On Jan 29, 10:35 am, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:34:53 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > > <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > >> Plans where you have to pay extra to see a doctor outside of the plan's > >> approved network. Plans where you have to pay extra if you don't want to > >> have to go through a family doctor in order to see a specialist. And so > >> on. > > >A very good point. In the US, you pay extra to see a doctor outside a > >network. In Canada, you are restricted to the one doctor who has > >accepted you as a patient; period. You are limited to that person's > >knowledge and skills; period. > > Certainly Canadians can spend their own money to see US physicians, so > your statement isn't 100% correct. Are all Canadian physicians > limited to only treating those patients assigned to them by the state? Canadians living in Canada do not have access to the quality of care Americans have in the US. That Canadians are free to access the US system, and do so because of shortcomings in the Canadian system is further damnation of the Canadian system.
From: dene on 29 Jan 2010 13:33 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-AC87AC.08474329012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <7sesbfF1bsU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Plans where you have to pay extra to see a doctor outside of the plan's > approved network. Plans where you have to pay extra if you don't want to > have to go through a family doctor in order to see a specialist. And so > on. You said there are gaps and limits, implying there are holes in the insurance contracts by which people who have legitimate medical needs get screwed. Now you are changing your tune. Now you are describing types of plans, not gaps and limits. That's apples and oranges. Your first sentence describes a PPO. If you choose to stay in-network, you get a better benefits than if you choose to go out-of-network. Most Drs. are on PPO plans and virtually all the hospitals. This keeps costs down, because the insurance company has negotiated set prices, which cannot be passed on to the insured. None of these plans require a referral. The 2nd plan you describe are HMO's. They control costs by having the family doctor run interference between the patient and the specialists. Patient satisfaction depends on one critical thing.....is your primary care physician trustworthy? Most of the time, these plans work very well, especially for those who stay close to home. The bottom line is that people, particularily individuals, have the choice of which kind of plan they want, unlike Britain or Canada. Americans want to maintain this choice. -Greg
From: William Clark on 29 Jan 2010 14:03 In article <b2e47378-cd18-4e37-bdb4-8a5b7dfa3e75(a)u26g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > On Jan 29, 10:35�am, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:34:53 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur Sr > > > > <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: > > >> Plans where you have to pay extra to see a doctor outside of the plan's > > >> approved network. Plans where you have to pay extra if you don't want to > > >> have to go through a family doctor in order to see a specialist. And so > > >> on. > > > > >A very good point. In the US, you pay extra to see a doctor outside a > > >network. In Canada, you are restricted to the one doctor who has > > >accepted you as a patient; period. You are limited to that person's > > >knowledge and skills; period. > > > > Certainly Canadians can spend their own money to see US physicians, so > > your statement isn't 100% correct. � �Are all Canadian physicians > > limited to only treating those patients assigned to them by the state? > > Canadians living in Canada do not have access to the quality of care > Americans have in the US. That Canadians are free to access the US > system, and do so because of shortcomings in the Canadian system is > further damnation of the Canadian system. Then how come they live longer? Oh, the irony!
From: William Clark on 29 Jan 2010 14:47 In article <408045d7-bc01-4ccf-a946-7e061659725e(a)r6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > On Jan 29, 9:58�am, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > state.edu> wrote: > > In article <MPG.25ccb4457acbf6f3989...(a)news.giganews.com>, > > > > > > > > �BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <bd2a7183-1bb3-45af-9786-e1c1ac0cb5c2 > > > @b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, frostback2...(a)att.net says... > > > > > > The most interesting aspect of this is your great concern. IF you take > > > > the position that I have never published anything in the area of > > > > materials science, you become, as a point of fact, a liar. It is not > > > > just a matter of being misinformed, because my CV was published online > > > > and available for many years, for anyone to see. > > > > > > What is more relevant is that your concern suggests that you are > > > > unpublished, or publish little in the area, isn't it, and it bothers > > > > you because you think there is some sort of academic status associated > > > > with who employs you in this business, when in fact academic status is > > > > solely a function of your accomplishments. > > > > > > Now as I claim zero status as a materials scientist, and I claim none, > > > > it becomes a problem for you that I have published in the area, > > > > because you want to claim some sort of status here, when you, like I, > > > > have none! > > > > > > In any event, the $5K bet is still open. > > > > > I have a $1US that says Billy doesn't take your bet. > > > > Damn right I am not. This is not an issue for "bets", this is about the > > core of academic integrity. He is claiming to have attended meetings and > > published in a field where it is absolutely clear he has not. George > > O'Leary lost his job for doing exactly the same thing, but I am sure > > your wingnut double standards can find a way around that. > > If claiming that you have done something you have not is a serious > issue, then a false accusation of such should be equally serious, > should it not? If so, then you should be fired. Well, given that publication records are the open currency of academia, anyone who is unwilling to back up a claim like yours by showing them is immediately suspect. Of course, you can clear it up right away, but each attempt to weasel out of answering the question simply makes you look more and more guilty.
From: Moderate on 29 Jan 2010 14:56
"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-6C0474.14035029012010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article > <b2e47378-cd18-4e37-bdb4-8a5b7dfa3e75(a)u26g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback2002(a)att.net> wrote: > >> On Jan 29, 10:35 am, Howard Brazee <how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: >> > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:34:53 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur Sr >> > >> > <frostback2...(a)att.net> wrote: >> > >> Plans where you have to pay extra to see a doctor outside of the >> > >> plan's >> > >> approved network. Plans where you have to pay extra if you don't >> > >> want to >> > >> have to go through a family doctor in order to see a specialist. And >> > >> so >> > >> on. >> > >> > >A very good point. In the US, you pay extra to see a doctor outside a >> > >network. In Canada, you are restricted to the one doctor who has >> > >accepted you as a patient; period. You are limited to that person's >> > >knowledge and skills; period. >> > >> > Certainly Canadians can spend their own money to see US physicians, so >> > your statement isn't 100% correct. Are all Canadian physicians >> > limited to only treating those patients assigned to them by the state? >> >> Canadians living in Canada do not have access to the quality of care >> Americans have in the US. That Canadians are free to access the US >> system, and do so because of shortcomings in the Canadian system is >> further damnation of the Canadian system. > > Then how come they live longer? Oh, the irony! I suppose it has something to do with the ethic percentages of the two countries. Life expectancies of different ethnic groups vary. The United States has a higher percentage of ethnic people whose average life expectancy is lower. It is more likely genetics than irony. |