health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Jack Hollis on 21 Feb 2010 13:38 On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 08:32:52 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >In article <9p01o5lhceo0fs5tcljk0moihhhke141tv(a)4ax.com>, >xsleeper(a)aol.com says... >> >> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:43:42 -0800 (PST), "John B." >> <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >The fact that other OECD countries are not having a civil war about >> >health care the way we are kind of suggests that they don't think >> >they've jumped off a bridge. >> >> In the UK 11% of the population has private health insurance. Why do >> you think they choose to pay for something that they can already get >> for free? Rich Canadians, including government ministers, come to the >> US for health care. Why do you suppose they do that? > >Because the system in the UK does not function as intended. People get >sick and need medical attention now, not at a time when it is cost >effective for the government. At least if you're wealthy in the UK you have access to a private system that will spare you from the NHS. In Canada, you have no choice but to come to the US because private insurance is outlawed. for anything that is covered by the Canadian system.
From: Jack Hollis on 21 Feb 2010 13:41 On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:34:14 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >> He has kids. He nearly lost his house. Would you put health insurance >> ahead of keeping a roof over your family's head and food on the table? >> Be honest. > >He made choices, he has to live with the choices he made. > >I make choices and I will have to live with the choices I make. > >If I wanted the government's hand to catch me when I fall or make stupid >decisions I would think just like you. This always amuses me. Carbs says that his friend almost lost HIS house. In reality, the Bank almost took their house back. If it was his house, the bank couldn't take it away form him.
From: Jack Hollis on 21 Feb 2010 13:45 On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 07:45:05 -0800 (PST), "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Japan, S. Korea, Canada, Australia are not in Europe. Maybe there's >something wrong with my way off thinking, but it seems to me that >looking at the experiences of other developed countries might be >helpful as we try to figure out how to improve our health care system. In reality, they should be looking towards the US as a means to improve their health care. The US has the best health care in the world. Of course, like the UK, many of these countries have a private system that provides better service than the national system to those who can afford it.
From: Dene on 21 Feb 2010 14:11 On Feb 21, 9:13 am, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:39:53 -0500, BAR wrote: > > In article <4b815d84$0$4850$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:59:01 -0500, BAR wrote: > >>> In article <4b81550b$0$4862$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > >>> nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > >>>> Perhaps there should be armed guards at the hospitals to keep the > >>>> sick away. Those who would cost the healthcare system too much > >>>> money could be hauled out back and shot. Problem solved, eh Bert? > >>>> After all, the poor have no one to blame but themselves. > > >>> Not to keep the sick away, just the smelly people out? You know the > >>> ones you found offensive when you last visited the ER. > > >> You almost never say anything prescriptive, about what should be > >> done. Here is your chance. What should happen with the hundreds of > >> thousands of people like my friend, who lost their jobs and insurance > >> in the recession and then became sick. Should they be forcibly > >> removed from the hospitals and left to die, to keep your taxes and > >> insurance premiums as low as possible? Should they be shot in the > >> back of the head, since that solution is even cheaper? Please, > >> impress us with your humanity. > > > This isn't about me it is about them and the choices they made in > > their life. They made choices on how they wanted to live. They should > > have done a better job of living within or below their means and > > planning for contingencies. > > > Can you put your hands on $100,000 within 24 hours without having to > > obtain a loan, cash out IRAs or a 401k? If no, you need to get in that > > position ASAP. > > So... other than the ludicrous suggestion that everyone suddenly become > wealthier, you have nothing. I guess that's why you ducked the question. > I ask again, what should happen millions without health insurance if > they develop an expensive disease? Should they be left to die? A simple > yes or no will suffice. Both of you are right. I'm sure Carb's friend made some choices that put himself in this situation. OTOH, people who are temporarily poor, should receive assistance to pay health insurance premiums. In Oregon, it's sliding scale, with the eligible applicant paying 10 to 30% of the premium. This could work on a federal level. You are exactly right about the pool of insured. All need to participate, which is precisely why an individual mandate is crucial. -Greg
From: Carbon on 21 Feb 2010 15:21
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:11:49 -0800, Dene wrote: > On Feb 21, 9:13 am, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:39:53 -0500, BAR wrote: >>> In article <4b815d84$0$4850$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >>> nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >>>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:59:01 -0500, BAR wrote: >>>>> In article <4b81550b$0$4862$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, >>>>> nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps there should be armed guards at the hospitals to keep the >>>>>> sick away. Those who would cost the healthcare system too much >>>>>> money could be hauled out back and shot. Problem solved, eh Bert? >>>>>> After all, the poor have no one to blame but themselves. >>>>> >>>>> Not to keep the sick away, just the smelly people out? You know >>>>> the ones you found offensive when you last visited the ER. >>>> >>>> You almost never say anything prescriptive, about what should be >>>> done. Here is your chance. What should happen with the hundreds of >>>> thousands of people like my friend, who lost their jobs and >>>> insurance in the recession and then became sick. Should they be >>>> forcibly removed from the hospitals and left to die, to keep your >>>> taxes and insurance premiums as low as possible? Should they be >>>> shot in the back of the head, since that solution is even cheaper? >>>> Please, impress us with your humanity. >>> >>> This isn't about me it is about them and the choices they made in >>> their life. They made choices on how they wanted to live. They >>> should have done a better job of living within or below their means >>> and planning for contingencies. >>> >>> Can you put your hands on $100,000 within 24 hours without having to >>> obtain a loan, cash out IRAs or a 401k? If no, you need to get in >>> that position ASAP. >> >> So... other than the ludicrous suggestion that everyone suddenly >> become wealthier, you have nothing. I guess that's why you ducked the >> question. I ask again, what should happen millions without health >> insurance if they develop an expensive disease? Should they be left >> to die? A simple yes or no will suffice. > > Both of you are right. I'm sure Carb's friend made some choices that > put himself in this situation. OTOH, people who are temporarily poor, > should receive assistance to pay health insurance premiums. In > Oregon, it's sliding scale, with the eligible applicant paying 10 to > 30% of the premium. This could work on a federal level. I'm not sure what other choices he could have made. The company he worked at hit a bad stretch during the recession and laid off a big chunk of its workforce. There aren't a lot of jobs out there. Faced with the same decision as he had, I would have also tended to more immediate concerns like food and shelter over insurance. So would anyone. When things get really tight, insurance is a luxury. > You are exactly right about the pool of insured. All need to > participate, which is precisely why an individual mandate is crucial. What would be best would be for the money to come out of sales taxes. That way even the slackers have to participate. |