health care
in [Golf]
|
From: dene on 16 Feb 2010 01:55 <assimilate(a)borg.org> wrote in message news:nRpen.74646$RS6.74145(a)newsfe15.iad... > > On 15-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > On 15-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > >>> They lead the charge to insure everybody, which isn't significantly > > >>> different from the current system to treat everybody anyway, and make > > >>> the rest of us pay. > > >> > > >> Good point. If we're already paying for it anyway why not structure the > > >> system to lower cost? > > > > > > you can't lower costs the liberal way, you just hide them & pass them on > > > to future generations. > > > > It's a nice fantasy, appealing in its brainless simplicity: Liberals > > blow money and Conservatives do not. > > You're the simple one, as those are your words. I've stated many times and > in great detail how to lower healthcare costs. What you call reform will not > do it. It goes against the basic laws of economics. > > -- > bill-o Carbs advocates only a gov't run, single payor system. -Greg
From: Carbon on 16 Feb 2010 23:21 On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:58:48 -0500, William Clark wrote: > In article <gekmn5poggg6so8642q5o5prk91a1n9nc3(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis > <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:15:57 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> >> wrote: >>>On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:35:43 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> >>>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Community hospitals get financial support from towns & cities, who >>>>> can require what they want for that support. >>>>> >>>>> For whatever reason they treat those who can't afford their >>>>> treatment, we pay. >>>> >>>> The reason that they do it is because it's the law. >>>> >>>> I have no idea what gives the government the right to order private >>>> businesses to provide services for free. >>> >>> The government can take my money and my labor. That's the nature >>> of governments. >>> >>> But in this case, the government pays money to community hospitals, >>> and demands some control for that money. >> >> The government doesn't reimburse the hospitals for the services. The >> hospital has to absorb the cost. This is what is known as an >> unfunded mandate. The Feds always pass unfunded mandates to the >> states, but that government to government. The law requiring >> hospitals to deliver services is, in many cases, a government mandate >> on a private business. Ultimately, the cost is passed on to the >> consumer who has insurance. It's a stealth tax. > > BS, Jack, as per usual. The hospitals don't "absorb the cost", they > recoup it by overcharging patients who do have insurance. In other > words, they are allowed to tax you and me. Gosh, sounds like a public > option, without the honesty or accountability. I can certainly vouch for that. I went to emergency last summer. There were a lot of underclass unemployed looking people in the waiting room. I talked to the doctor for one (1) minute. No treatment was performed. The cost: around $500.
From: Howard Brazee on 16 Feb 2010 07:55 On 16 Feb 2010 04:57:56 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >It's a nice fantasy, appealing in its brainless simplicity: Liberals >blow money and Conservatives do not. But, if I don't look at the facts, I can believe my side blows the money the same way as I do. -- "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 16 Feb 2010 07:54 On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:07:35 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: >>They lead the charge to insure everybody, which isn't significantly >>different from the current system to treat everybody anyway, and make >>the rest of us pay. > >Personally, I think it's unconstitutional for the government to >require private hospitals to treat people for free and the same for >requiring people to buy health insurance. I expect in today's society, a hospitals will treat people without a government mandate. Community hospitals get financial support from towns & cities, who can require what they want for that support. For whatever reason they treat those who can't afford their treatment, we pay. -- "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: assimilate on 16 Feb 2010 23:38
On 16-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >> It's a nice fantasy, appealing in its brainless simplicity: Liberals > >> blow money and Conservatives do not. > > > > You're the simple one, as those are your words. I've stated many times > > and in great detail how to lower healthcare costs. What you call > > reform will not do it. It goes against the basic laws of economics. > > Back here on planet earth, what I call reform is what is otherwise known > as universal healthcare. Everywhere it has been implemented (in the > first world at least) it has been much less expensive per capita than US > healthcare and has also produced better results in the form of average > life expectancy But you can't say what their systems would be if they had not gone down the economy stifling path of UHS now can you? Can you tell me that Britain's NHS won't implode under the weight of bommer aging? It is already showing stress. Life expectancy does not relate exclusively to healthcare, if fact, after the 1st few fragile years of life, it is almost divorced from it. -- bill-o |