health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Carbon on 17 Feb 2010 00:58 On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 04:40:28 +0000, assimilate wrote: > On 16-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:55:33 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote: >>> 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. >> >> You'd think there would be some re-assessment going on after the >> fiscal mismanagement of the last couple of Republican >> administrations... > > but yet again when the Repulicains thought they were wasting money, > the Dems come in and school them on how to do it right! That's certainly the fantasy interpretation.
From: BAR on 17 Feb 2010 06:58 In article <4b7b6ecb$0$4944$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > 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. Why didn't you go to a Doc-In-A-Box, it would have been cheaper. And, obviously you were not in a life threatening situation.
From: BAR on 17 Feb 2010 06:59 In article <4b7b853c$0$23502$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 04:38:52 +0000, assimilate wrote: > > 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. > > Economy stifling? Bill, what the hell are you talking about? The US > system is the most expensive in the world by far. Countries with > rational healthcare systems have a lot less to worry about than the US > does. Does rational mean wasting an ER's time and resources on a perceived illness that requires no treatment?
From: Moderate on 17 Feb 2010 08:32 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4b7b6ecb$0$4944$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > 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. Doesn't sound like it was an emergency.
From: Carbon on 17 Feb 2010 11:15
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 06:58:02 -0500, BAR wrote: > In article <4b7b6ecb$0$4944$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >> 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. > > Why didn't you go to a Doc-In-A-Box, it would have been cheaper. And, > obviously you were not in a life threatening situation. At the time I wasn't sure it wasn't going to become an emergency. And coming from a place that has a less corrupt healthcare system, I had no idea I would be fucked to that extent. |