 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / June 2004Single Payer Universal Health Care
Download and print these trifold brochures to help promote single payer Universial Health Care http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/otherpdfs/HealthCareBrochurePetition.pdf http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/otherpdfs/HealthCareBroch_NoPetition.pdf Learn More: http://www.kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php Health care is currently dominated by insurance firms and HMOs, institutions that are more bureaucratic and costly than Medicare. Right now, private companies are charging about 18% for administration, while the cost of Medicare administration is only 3%. People are waiting longer for appointments. Fewer people are getting a doctor of their choice. Physicians are being given monetary incentives to deny care. Pre-existing illnesses are being used to deny coverage. It's important to understand that insurance companies make more money by NOT providing health care. A single-payer system can save money by investing in preventive care, as well as by cutting out the insurance companies' profits. Insurance companies do not heal or treat anyone. Physicians and health practitioners do. Non-profit national health insurance will actually decrease total health care spending while providing more treatment and services -- through reductions in bureaucracy and cost-cutting measures such as bulk purchasing of prescriptions drugs. A study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and Public Citizens found that health care bureaucracy last year cost the United States $399.4 billion. The study estimates that national health insurance could save at least $286 billion annually on paperwork, enough to cover all of the uninsured and to provide full prescription drug coverage for everyone in the United States. How would we pay for it? Funding will come primarily from existing government health care spending (more than $1 trillion) and a phased-in tax on employers of 7.7% (almost $1 trillion). Employers who provide coverage are already paying 8.5%, on average. That would raise about $920 billion. In addition to that, there's already over a trillion dollars being spent a year in local, state and federal dollars for health care. The American people are already paying for universal health care; they're just not getting it. Privately delivered health care, publicly financed -- has worked well in other countries, none of which spend as much per capita on health care as the United States. The cost-effectiveness of a single-payer system has been affirmed in many studies, including those conducted by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office. The GAO has said: "If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs (10% to private insurers) would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage." Over the years, groups and individuals as diverse as Consumers Union, labor unions, the CEO of General Motors, the editorial boards of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and St. Louis Post Dispatch, and Physicians for a National Health Program have endorsed a single-payer approach. In the "Physicians Proposal for National Health Care," 7,782 physicians agreed that "proposals that would retain the roles of private insurers -- such as calls for tax-credits, Medicaid/CHIP expansions, and pushing more seniors into private HMOs -- are prescriptions for failure." It is sound economics -- what actuaries call "Spreading the Risk" -- to extend Medicare to younger and healthier sectors of our population, thereby putting everyone in one insurance pool. It permanently saves and improves Medicare, while eliminating duplicative private and government bureaucracies. ==================================== Petition to the Democratic Party: We Want Universal Health Care (you do not have to be a democrat to sign the petition) http://www.kucinich.us/petitions/petition_text_uhc1.php?s=p I, the undersigned, approve the establishment of a universal single-payer national health care system in the U.S. Such a system will be publicly financed and privately delivered, allowing people to choose their own health care providers. The system will provide preventive health care, dental care, mental health care, and affordable prescription drugs. This system will make health care available to everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, status of employment, or income level. I urge Democrats to make this resolution a plank in the 2004 party platform. http://www.kucinich.us/petitions/ Lot of us are find the current medical care system may be serving the wrong people. However it is not a party issue. Making it a one party issue will result in no action except a band aid approach. The Medicare Prescription is a great example. Politicians serve one master and it is usually the ones with money. Our system requires your vote. So they talk out of both sides of their mouth. It will go on until a crisis situation develops and the finger pointing will dominate. Unfortunately that time will come too late for people like me. The basic question today, is how much of our GNP should be allocated to medical care. If any industry loses control they must be reeled in sooner or late. Greed know no limits. All systems must have external control since we are not capable of self regulation. In many aspects of medicine the "free enterprise" system can not function. The demand price curve is not elastic. , A universal system seem to be the way to go. It will not happen, Too much profit for some in the present mess. Most sick people should know how to vote already. But their ballot will have a hanging chad. The whole thing is a very sick joke The illness is about all I can handle but each week I get some external red tape problem. Enough money for that anyway. I am reaching the stage where I expect the worst. Wish I could come back in 200 years and see how the real history is written Guy; > Download and print these trifold brochures to help promote single payer > Universial Health Care http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/otherpdfs/HealthCareBrochurePetit ion.pdf http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/otherpdfs/HealthCareBroch_NoPetit ion.pdf > Learn More: > http://www.kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Insurance companies do not heal or treat anyone. Physicians and health > practitioners do. Except that staying away from care may at times be more healthy than more and more and more medications. Physicians posting on TPM constantly declare that Medicare is inefficient. They claim that the 3% figure you cite is bogus. > Non-profit national health insurance will actually decrease total health > care spending while providing more treatment and services -- through [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Medicare, while eliminating duplicative private and government > bureaucracies. The largest fear of organized medicine in the USA is that Medicare for all Ages becomes law. I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to add/neutralize some of the extremist portions of your argument - which inevitably are the downfall of such opinions as they polarize conversations to either being pro or anti - whatever, which is often quite counterproductive. Again, my opinions come from an MD who sees and appreciates the highlights of BOTH sides of this issue, so be careful of attacking people in the middle... since people like me are (or should be) your target audience... > Download and print these trifold brochures to help promote single payer > Universial Health Care http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/otherpdfs/HealthCareBrochurePetition.pdf http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/otherpdfs/HealthCareBroch_NoPetition.pdf > Learn More: > http://www.kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php problem #1 - promoting sources of information know to be nothing more than propaganda machines. Propaganda should never be used as a source of meaningful information or insight. It's like saying "OJ was innocent, just read what his defense attorney had to say!". > Health care is currently dominated by insurance firms and HMOs, institutions > that are more bureaucratic and costly than Medicare. Right now, private > companies are charging about 18% for administration, while the cost of > Medicare administration is only 3%. Is this really a good thing? Perhaps if medicare had better (read: more costly) administration, it would not the be easy target it is right now as the poster child for a poorly run government organization. Beware those double edged swords. Medicare is absolutely fraugth with problems. > People are waiting longer for > appointments. Fewer people are getting a doctor of their choice. You later compare the US system to other nations. Are you aware that in such nations you go to the doctor you have and that's it. Everything else is done through that individual? A very difficult system to change MD's and an impossilbe (virtually) system to "choose your own doctor". Right now, if I had colon cancer, there is ONE surgeon of the dozens I personally know who I would go to. I would wait to see her if need be because there are none better that I know of. We can do that in the US. > Physicians > are being given monetary incentives to deny care. There are also incentives, including non monetary, to provide care. A fair and unbiased assessment would compare those competing forces to determine the net effect. A difficult task, but a necessary one to advance either side of this debate in any meaningful manner. > Pre-existing illnesses are > being used to deny coverage. Yes. Will a singler payer change that? > It's important to understand that insurance > companies make more money by NOT providing health care. A single-payer > system can save money by investing in preventive care, The US government investing in preventative care? You would need to prove to me that our government has both the interest and the *ability* to do advance such a topic, since they currently do an absolutely abysmal job at this. > as well as by cutting > out the insurance companies' profits. Sounds like arranging a government run monopoly to me. How will you guarantee to us that the government will not just continue the current abuses and pocket the profits for themselves? Should we trust this to the "integrity" of our lawmakers and politicians? > Insurance companies do not heal or treat anyone. Nor does the government, correct? > Physicians and health > practitioners do. > > Non-profit national health insurance will actually decrease total health > care spending while providing more treatment and services An interesting concept that has been proposed here and elsewhere a number of times. Those who oppose single payer can provide some examples of how this will happen and those that oppose it provide examples of this will not happen. The fact is, however, we DO NOT KNOW if this will end up costing more or less money. We do not know if this will increase or decrease efficiency. We do not know if this will lead to better or worse care. Comparisons to other country that perform strict cost control and are excessively regulatory and micromanaging are obsolete since their societies and governments operate fundamentally differently. > -- through > reductions in bureaucracy and cost-cutting measures such as bulk purchasing > of prescriptions drugs. A study by researchers at Harvard Medical School While a fine institution, anything coming out of that place needs to be taken with more than a grain of salt since they are an extremely leftist institution. > and > Public Citizens found that health care bureaucracy last year cost the United > States $399.4 billion. The study estimates that national health insurance > could save at least $286 billion annually on paperwork, enough to cover all > of the uninsured and to provide full prescription drug coverage for everyone > in the United States. I'll avoid overly condescending insults at this point. Suffice it to say, a reasonable person understands that we can solve the health care crisis by simply cutting paperwork. In addition, many believe that a government run healthcare system will lead to more paperwork, not less. > How would we pay for it? > Funding will come primarily from existing government health care spending [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > federal dollars for health care. The American people are already paying for > universal health care; they're just not getting it. Let me revise that statement - those who are paying for it actually are getting it. It's those who are NOT paying for it that are not getting it. That, of course, is an issue that drives straight to the heart of the philosophical debate here - how socialist of a country do we want to become? To what point will America accept redistribution of wealth? To what point should we? Should we change our fundamental outlook of "there are no free rides"? > Privately delivered health care, publicly financed -- has worked well in > other countries, none of which spend as much per capita on health care as > the United States. As above, comparisons to other countries without somehow accounting for the fundamental differences in philosophy, can not succeed and lack meaning. Caning seems to work well in some other countries ... China has a wealth of organs for transplantation thanks to the involuntary offering of their executed "criminals". Just because things are done in other nations is not, in and of itself, a reason to do it here. > The cost-effectiveness of a single-payer system has been > affirmed in many studies, It can not be until it's been tried. Until then all this your examples are high paid guesses. I wonder how many prescriptions could have been paid for by cutting such "task forces"... > including those conducted by the Congressional > Budget Office and the General Accounting Office. The GAO has said: "If the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > National Health Program have endorsed a single-payer approach. In the > "Physicians Proposal for National Health Care," 7,782 physicians 8 thousand is not exactly an overwhelming response, since there are almost 3/4 of a million docs in this country. I think something a bit more than 1% of docs will be needed for that to have any significance, don't you? > agreed that > "proposals that would retain the roles of private insurers -- such as calls [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > http://www.kucinich.us/petitions/ > I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to <snipped for brevity) You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one. Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of overhead of prepaid health plans. The current system where the Blues and Aetna provide most of the health care in the US is incredibly inefficient.  Signature"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present" Glen Cook >> I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to > <snipped for brevity) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The current system where the Blues and Aetna provide most of the health > care in the US is incredibly inefficient. And you have made a MAJOR mistake. Administrative costs are computed very differently for government and private entities. When they are figured on the same basis, they are very close. > >> I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to > > <snipped for brevity) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > very differently for government and private entities. When they are > figured on the same basis, they are very close. Plus, if you look at the federal budget, you will discover that Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid costs are spread over several different line items. SignatureFor 35 years I made a very good living in politics. I'll probably spend the rest of my life praying for forgivness for participating in such a sleazy profession. Brooks Gregory >> >> I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to >> > <snipped for brevity) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Security, Medicare/Medicaid costs are spread over several different line >items. Which is all paid for, btw, not like the administration's current spending and wanting to borrow from it from SS either. It is not the cost, it is the administrative cost6 Last I saw, it was 7 times as high for private plans than for Medicare. >>>>I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Security, Medicare/Medicaid costs are spread over several different line > items. Signature"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present" Glen Cook >It is not the cost, it is the administrative cost6 > >Last I saw, it was 7 times as high for private plans than for Medicare. You know, you've been here awhile and you're not crazy. You seem to quote a lot of good material. Any places you regularly check out? > It is not the cost, it is the administrative cost6 > > Last I saw, it was 7 times as high for private plans than for Medicare. Administrative costs are computed very differently for government and private entities. When they are figured on the same basis, they are very close. Do it yerself. Go to the 10Ks for private insurors and figure the percentage of premium revenue that does not go to providers. Very simple. Now go the the federal budget and figure the percentage of Title XVIII/XIX funding that does not go to providers. Not so simple, but doable. Report the results here. >> It is not the cost, it is the administrative cost6 >> >> Last I saw, it was 7 times as high for private plans than for Medicare. > >Administrative costs are computed very differently for government and >private entities. A buck is a buck. It's just less bucks with the gummint. When they are figured on the same basis, they are very >close. Cite? >Do it yerself. Go to the 10Ks for private insurors and figure the >percentage of premium revenue that does not go to providers. Very >simple. Now go the the federal budget and figure the percentage of Title >XVIII/XIX funding that does not go to providers. Not so simple, but doable. > >Report the results here. Burden of proof is on the asserter, prove it yourself. >>> It is not the cost, it is the administrative cost6 >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Burden of proof is on the asserter, prove it yourself. So it's up to Rosenburg who asserted, " It is not the cost, it is the administrative cost. Last I saw, it was 7 times as high for private plans than for Medicare." Not real easy to believe, even if yer too lazy to find the facts for yerself. >>>> It is not the cost, it is the administrative cost6 >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Not real easy to believe, even if yer too lazy to find the facts for >yerself. Sure it is. That's why the Gummint under Bush is trying for charities to take the poor and needy and uneducated, right? Conservatives keep trumpeting that it's cheaper for them since they have no profit motive. The same is true for medicare/aid. That's why it would be better for a univeral payer system.... But then again, Bu$h would lose all that donation money too. > Sure it is. That's why the Gummint under Bush is trying for charities > to take the poor and needy and uneducated, right? Conservatives keep > trumpeting that it's cheaper for them since they have no profit > motive. No, we keep trumpeting that it's cheaper for the taxpayer because it's funded with charitable donations. The gov't's offer of all my wants and needs from cradle to grave is tempting, though. And all those gov't employees get great health benefits. Terrible to put them out of work. > > >> I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to > > > <snipped for brevity) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Security, Medicare/Medicaid costs are spread over several different line > items. This is one of the standard rants of those who are against universal health care. They all claim that there are mystery costs not accounted for by government. It is like the Sierra Club claiming that the true cost of gasolene is $15 a gallon. >> > And you have made a MAJOR mistake. Administrative costs are computed >> > very differently for government and private entities. When they are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > by government. It is like the Sierra Club claiming that the true cost of > gasolene is $15 a gallon. There are no "mystery costs", they're all there for all to see. However, Federal accounting and private sector accounting are significantly different. But one does not have to be a CPA to analyze the data and see that gov't programs spend as much on administration as private sector companies do. If you have even a modicum of understanding of financial reporting, you can go to the federal budget and to the private sector 10Ks and recast the statements to compare like expenditures. There are specific items you can argue (should taxes paid by private sector companies be included in administrative costs, e.g., or how should the cost of the administrative and legislative branches be allocated to specific programs like Titles XVIII and XIX). But when apples are compared to apples, gov't allocation of expenditures between provider costs and non-provider costs is essentially the same as the private sector's. > >> > And you have made a MAJOR mistake. Administrative costs are computed > >> > very differently for government and private entities. When they are [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the data and see that gov't programs spend as much on administration as > private sector companies do. Here you go again, claiming falsely that no one knows how to compute costs but YOU. Shame. >> However, Federal accounting and private sector accounting are >> significantly different. But one does not have to be a CPA to analyze [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Here you go again, claiming falsely that no one knows how to compute > costs but YOU. Shame. I see that English is not yer first language. When I say that "one does not have to be a CPA to analyze the data", that means that anyone with any understanding of charts of accounts can determine for himself what the costs are. Even you. And if you bother to do so, you will find that private sector administration costs are not seven times public sector administration costs, as was stated. > >> However, Federal accounting and private sector accounting are > >> significantly different. But one does not have to be a CPA to analyze [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > any understanding of charts of accounts can determine for himself what > the costs are. > Even you. > > And if you bother to do so, you will find that private sector > administration costs are not seven times public sector administration > costs, as was stated. Except you are the only one making this false claim. >> >> However, Federal accounting and private sector accounting are >> >> significantly different. But one does not have to be a CPA to analyze [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Except you are the only one making this false claim. Whatever. Believe what ya wanna believe. >>> And if you bother to do so, you will find that private sector >>> administration costs are not seven times public sector administration >>> costs, as was stated. >> >> Except you are the only one making this false claim. According to the gov't National Health Accounts, in 2002 the gov't spent 4.7 % on administration, private health insurers spent 12.8 % These data are not directly comparable, however, as there is (1) no gov't charge for administration above the program level while private sector administration includes all charges for corporate HQ, board of directors, security, maintenance, etc. (2) private sector administration charges include all taxes, from which most gov't programs are exempt. Even thus skewed, the gov't/private ratio is 1:2.7, a long long way from 1:7. Add to gov't the administrative costs charged to non-health account programs, and deduct just federal income taxes from private administration costs and they come out about equal. > > > >> I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to > > > > <snipped for brevity) [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > by government. It is like the Sierra Club claiming that the true cost of > gasolene is $15 a gallon. So, George, what are the national costs of environmental protection? Is it just the budget of the EPA and other government agencies, or do you have to include the far greater costs imposed on businesses by the government agencies - costs that the consumer NEVER sees other than increased prices, for which they blame the corporations, of course. What we need is truth in billing. All doctors should present a bill for their actual services, then add line items for compliance with government/insurance regulations, malpractice (i.e., trial lawyer extortion) insurance, etc. Of course, since almost no one actually pays for their own care directly (one of the major faults of our system), few will notice, but it would be a good start. Maybe they could put up a price list in the office of how much lower the average person's health insurance bill would be without these expenses. (And then businesses should do the same on their price lists.) >>> I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to >> <snipped for brevity) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >very differently for government and private entities. When they are >figured on the same basis, they are very close. Cite? >>>> I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to >>> <snipped for brevity) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Cite? Private company 10Ks and the federal budget. >>>>> I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to >>>> <snipped for brevity) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Private company 10Ks and the federal budget. show it. Show the amount and cite here. >>>>And you have made a MAJOR mistake. Administrative costs are computed >>>>very differently for government and private entities. When they are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > show it. Show the amount and cite here. Interesting that you will accept a statement that gov't admin costs are 1/7 of private admin costs, at face value, but won't bother to look for yourself. For a very reasonable fee, I will assemble the data and forward it to you. You will, of course, find some reason not to believe what is shown, so I require the fee in advance. Or go on believing the 1/7 without being shown the amount and cite for that ridiculous fraction. > > I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to > <snipped for brevity) > > You have one major mistake, and it is a MAJOR one. > Medicare overhead is a very small fraction of overhead of prepaid > health plans. Any thoughts as to why? | > > I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to | > <snipped for brevity) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | | Any thoughts as to why? It's not a fraction of prepaid health plans.....Medicare, like any government bureaucracy, lives on excessive paperwork managed by hordes of overpaid civil servants. They just conveniently report whatever part of the cost they want to report....just as those who champion single payer don't tell you that all too often care is rationed and unavailable to many....another way of keeping costs down. I prefer the private sector and open competition - whenever you have a free market and competition, quality goes up and costs go down....that's an a priori truth..... PC >| > > I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to >| > <snipped for brevity) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >PC I prefer a private system if it were possible. Anyone that thinks our current system is open competition has no concept how things really operate.Price fixing is not only common but if a doc cuts prices he will suffer. Medical school enrollment is strictly controlled. If a rule is made to prohibit this, they allow more entry students but increase flunk rates. The real problem is the greedy human race that is power and money crazy. We all destroy more than enough to provide a decent system. Then, we come up with all sort of rationalizations and excuses. The answer is to keep the mess we have where some do quite well and others are abused. But we get on our high horse and talk about morality. What morality? . All I can say about medical care is--- The docs are the best we have, better than charlatans. But in my opinion it is poor and filled with mistakes. Medical care is dominated by hustlers and too much spent of advertising and bull sh.t. Those associated with it will defend it with any excuse they can find. Just like the rest of society. Slavery has not ended but has a new costume. Th masters exploit our weaknesses to gain economic advantage. Yes in many ways medicare stinks too. It is run by humans. >| > > I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to >| > <snipped for brevity) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >government bureaucracy, lives on excessive paperwork managed by hordes of >overpaid civil servants. Actually, as Stan posted already, the overpaid and overpaperworked people are i nthe private sector, the HMO's. Lower percentage means lower cost. They just conveniently report whatever part of the >cost they want to report....just as those who champion single payer don't >tell you that all too often care is rationed and unavailable to >many. Wow, just like now, except worse. ...another way of keeping costs down. I prefer the private sector and >open competition - whenever you have a free market and competition, quality >goes up and costs go down....that's an a priori truth..... LOL, we've been trying it that way for years. now we have the highest health care costs and lowest delivery in the world. Step aside, dinosaur, your time has passed. Time for new ways and methods to try. >PC > | > > I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to > | > <snipped for brevity) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > overpaid civil servants. They just conveniently report whatever part of the > cost they want to report.... You are like the Sierra Club claiming that the true cost of gasoline is $15 a gallon because true costs are not computed. What you are doing is claiming that all government data is a lie, and you and only you know the truth. || > | Any thoughts as to why? | > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | claiming that all government data is a lie, and you and only you know the | truth. Others have already answered your claim - but speaking as one who has worked with the Federal bureaucracy for more than forty years, I can assert positively that NO Federal program reports it's "costs" as it's "costs". You have to review all the ancillary agencies, etc., and add them all up....this is not rocket science and it's nothing new. Government data isn't a "lie", it's government data and you need to learn how to read it and interpret it - I'm only one of many thousands of people who know how to do that. Clearly, you aren't among that number......:) The most important thing is that single payer, like most socialist programs, doesn't work - costs escalate and quality of service goes down. If you went to most of those socialist paradises that rhapsodize about the wonders of their system, you'd find the quality of care is lower than that we provided for cats and dogs in veterinary hospitals in this country...... And, just as an aside, IF the Sierra Club and the whackos they represent had their way, gasoline would cost more like $20 a gallon...... PC >The most important thing is that single payer, like most socialist programs, >doesn't work - costs escalate and quality of service goes down. That is happening here with the supposed free market. It is not happening with socialized medicine. I keep asking you guys for cites. I know you haven't any proof at all .You have a religious belief and that is it. If you went >to most of those socialist paradises that rhapsodize about the wonders of >their system, you'd find the quality of care is lower than that we provided >for cats and dogs in veterinary hospitals in this country...... I know for a fact that isn't true. I know diabetics in Canada who are okay. I also know we are rated pretty low for healthcare worldwide. >And, just as an aside, IF the Sierra Club and the whackos they represent had >their way, gasoline would cost more like $20 a gallon...... You guys are pretty scared of Kerry aren't you? Step aside dinosaur...time for he mammals to rule the earth. > || > | Any thoughts as to why? > | > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I'm only one of many thousands of people who know how to do that. Clearly, > you aren't among that number......:) Take that up with the CBO. I guess you accuse them of secret undertakings too. | > || > | Any thoughts as to why? | > | > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] | Take that up with the CBO. I guess you accuse them of secret | undertakings too. I've been actively involved in Federal budgeting for more than forty years - and I accuse no one of anything. I merely reported what "is" and what "has been" the standard practices within the Federal bureacracy - beginning with the first Washington administration.....! FWIW, the CBO is probably the worst source of accurate information since it is driven by partisanship. GSA is a better source, but not much better. Common sense evaluation of public records by people willing to use their brains and apply simple standards works much better than relying on either one..... PC > | > || > | Any thoughts as to why? > | > | > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > the first Washington administration.....! FWIW, the CBO is probably the > worst source of accurate information since it is driven by partisanship. And is the census bureau making up fake immigrants in order to destroy social security? Do you find ghosts under your bed? | > | > || > | Any thoughts as to why? | > | > | > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] | And is the census bureau making up fake immigrants in order to destroy | social security? Where did I infer any such thing? What prompts you to suggest that I did? Can you discuss without mocking? Do you have anything constructive, something like an "idea", to interject into the discussion? | Do you find ghosts under your bed? No, but I find a lot of fools posting in Internet discussion groups......:) PC > > | You are like the Sierra Club claiming that the true cost of gasoline > is [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Take that up with the CBO. I guess you accuse them of secret > undertakings too. You mean the folks who predicted Medicare would cost 1/10th what it actually does? In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote: : | > > I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to : | > <snipped for brevity) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : | : | Any thoughts as to why? : It's not a fraction of prepaid health plans.....Medicare, like any : government bureaucracy, lives on excessive paperwork managed by hordes of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : open competition - whenever you have a free market and competition, quality : goes up and costs go down....that's an a priori truth..... : PC And HMO's don't ration healthcare unless they are forced? Wendy | In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote: | [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] | | And HMO's don't ration healthcare unless they are forced? Indeed they do - HMO's are the precursor of the single payer system. No sane person uses them....and those of you who continue to whine that you have no other choice can save your bandwidth.......only people who want cheap care use HMOs and they get what they paid for, cheap care..... A free market, with competition, mitigates for "fee for service" and choice for the consumer. Our system provides the finest health care in the world for everyone, even illegal aliens who broke the law to enter the country. High prices are due to bureaucratic excesses and phony "controls". The free market with competition is the answer, not HMO's, which are a pathetic travesty on decent medical care.... PC >Indeed they do - HMO's are the precursor of the single payer system. No they aren't they are free market. No sane >person uses them.... Which is wh ywe're going to replace it. and those of you who continue to whine that you have no >other choice can save your bandwidth...... Thanks buddy, but you don't run this group. .only people who want cheap care >use HMOs and they get what they paid for, cheap care..... That's most of the US. Australia's plan would be better. >A free market, with competition, mitigates for "fee for service" and choice >for the consumer. Our system provides the finest health care in the world >for everyone, even illegal aliens who broke the law to enter the country. This is a seriies of assertions, with out any proof. Burden of proof is on the asserter. I know you can't offer that, which is why you keep repeating yourself. As I said before, step aside sir. Let's have universal healthcare. >High prices are due to bureaucratic excesses and phony "controls". The free >market with competition is the answer, not HMO's, which are a pathetic >travesty on decent medical care.... We've had enough "free market" we have to pay for, and with nothing but the most price conscious and service restricting washouts as a result. People and econmies need planning, not anarchy. Hear hear for universal care. > | In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote: > | [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > other choice can save your bandwidth.......only people who want cheap care > use HMOs and they get what they paid for, cheap care..... Cheap care, my butt. Mine costs me $135/week. Plus it seems like every scrip is $40. And the treatment the wound care center recommended for my diabetic DH is $30 a visit, 3 visits a week, plus special shoes, etc. It'd be nice if I got the going rate for my profession but I've been searching for a different job for 2 years now with no luck. I've got the plan I can afford and still buy groceries. > A free market, with competition, mitigates for "fee for service" and choice > for the consumer. Our system provides the finest health care in the world > for everyone, even illegal aliens who broke the law to enter the country. > High prices are due to bureaucratic excesses and phony "controls". The free > market with competition is the answer, not HMO's, which are a pathetic > travesty on decent medical care.... If it's the finest health care in the world, why do many other countries have longer living people and why do inner city babies have the mortality rate of a third world country? If competition worked, gas would be half of what it is. There's a gas station on every corner, practically. I dare y'all to go to 7500 Security Blvd., near Baltimore and tell the workers there they're overpaid. How much do they make? It's easy enough to go www.cms.hhs.gov and click on the jobs section, and match up the government pay rates with the job listings. A little clicking around will give you the rates they have to pay for health insurance (the zip code for CMS--Medicare--is 21244). A GS9 makes just $21,980 to start and would pay $65/week for her family to be in an HMO. If you haven't lived on $22K annually, $65 is a lot of money. SignatureI'm Eva Whitley and I approved this message. >> | In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote: ..................... >> A free market, with competition, mitigates for "fee for service" and choice >> for the consumer. Our system provides the finest health care in the world >> for everyone, even illegal aliens who broke the law to enter the country. >> High prices are due to bureaucratic excesses and phony "controls". The free >> market with competition is the answer, not HMO's, which are a pathetic >> travesty on decent medical care.... >If it's the finest health care in the world, why do many other countries >have longer living people Have you heard of genetics? Oliver Wendell Holmes, when asked how to live to a ripe old age, answered, "Choose your grandparents carefully." There are also a large number of people who have no idea of how to take care of anything, or how to evaluate anything. Our "educational" system greatly increases the problem. and why do inner city babies have the >mortality rate of a third world country? The intelligence and knowledge of the inner city parents is sufficiently low that they do not make use of the medical care available, do not have remotely intelligent diets, and quite a few other things. If competition worked, gas >would be half of what it is. There's a gas station on every corner, >practically. A recent article had the average gasoline tax at roughly 40 cents on a gallon. The price of oil now is about $40 per barrel, or $1.27 per gallon. There is the cost of refining and distribution, taxes on the gas station, other fees, and the owners should be entitled to make SOME profit. The lack of competition is due to OPEC, a super-government organization. BTW, the number of gas stations in the western part of West Lafayette is less than half as many as 10 years ago. >I dare y'all to go to 7500 Security Blvd., near Baltimore and tell the >workers there they're overpaid. How much do they make? Are they worth what they make? Why can you not get shirts ironed at a laundry? This disappeared when the minimum wage rose enough. As the minimum wage is now about half the average wage in many fields, only experienced and good workers can be hired. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 Herman, I have never heard such a bunch of crap from someone whoo supposedly has a brain 1) We have, by any measure, the worst health system in the world 2) If you don't have ghealth insurance, have assets over $300, and are not rich, you can't get medical care, ANY medical care.. If brought into an ER, they have to stabalize you before throwing you out, but they WILL through you out as soon as you are stabalized. 3) Genetics has nothing to do with the US lifespan numbers, as almost all the components of the US population have longer lifespans than the US. 4) The gasoline taxes pay for the ROADS you ride on - you won't need any gas at all if you don't have roads - Or, I guess you expect them to materialize >>>| In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > the average wage in many fields, only experienced and good > workers can be hired. Signature"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present" Glen Cook >In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote: ..................... >: It's not a fraction of prepaid health plans.....Medicare, like any >: government bureaucracy, lives on excessive paperwork managed by hordes of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >: open competition - whenever you have a free market and competition, quality >: goes up and costs go down....that's an a priori truth..... >And HMO's don't ration healthcare unless they are forced? Which is one reason why I would avoid using an HMO. The local HMO is not bad, and might even be cheaper for me than what I am now paying, but I consider the ability to make choices to be important. We do not have enough competition; at least the courts have ruled that medical groups do not have the right to block competition. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > And HMO's don't ration healthcare unless they are forced? The HMO Act of '73 was an attempt to expand previous plans like Kaiser Permanente and the Centros in Florida which rationed prepaid health in return for lower premiums. They were immediately very popular. Somewhere along the way, the willingness to have the HMO limit service only to service they deemed necessary and sufficient disappeared, and HMOs reverted to the service levels of fee-for-service plans. And the price of fee-for-service plans. Those of us who have no health insurance would be happy to to find a plan that denies sex change operations, MRIs for every headache, and physical therapy for every sprained wrist. Those who have plans paid for by their employers or by the taxpayer refuse to let us have rationed care. But when the 100% of the cost of care comes from yer own wallet, it is comforting to have the doc tell you that you don't need a CAT scan. > In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Wendy People select insurance providers and are free to switch to plans with access provisions more in line with their needs. One of the wonders of competition is that providers need to meet the needs of their customer - if not, the customer goes somewhere else. Under single payer, all you get is a vote and then only every four years. The World Health Organization has rated the US health care system as the most responsive in the world. Wonder why? You want to see rationing - try the NHS in the UK. js >People select insurance providers and are free to switch to plans with >access provisions more in line with their needs. no they don't, they take what they can get and afford. The majority of Americans do not get choices except offers they can not refuse...take it or leave it. One of the wonders >of competition is that providers need to meet the needs of their >customer - if not, the customer goes somewhere else. Under single >payer, all you get is a vote and then only every four years. Actually, you actually get it. Our system doesn't give it to 1 of 6 people in the population, many of them children. What about the children? >The World Health Organization has rated the US health care system as >the most responsive in the world. Wonder why? I just searched their site. Where is the statement you are talking about? http://www.who.int/research/en/ >You want to see rationing - try the NHS in the UK. Got rationing here already. Want less, go to universal system. Best doctors get most work done, get moe money. No work, no money. Just like real life. > In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Wendy Mr. PC here ignores the fact that medicine here is twice as expensive as average, and he blames it all on the the small part which provides universal health insurance: Medicare. These shills for rapid rising costs forever are very shameful. | > In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote: | > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] | health insurance: Medicare. These shills for rapid rising costs forever | are very shameful. Read past posts again, slowly, for comprehension..... Medicine is more expensive here because it is BETTER than you will find anywhere else and because WE bear virtually all the costs of the development of new methods, new technology, new drugs, new everything which the rest of the world gets for free since they contribute nothing to the costs of such advances..... I blamed nothing on Medicare - I took issue with the notion that the socialistic nonsense relating to "single payer" had any merit. It doesn't....read back again about the "free market" and "competition" and "privatization" and "getting government out"......! PC > | > In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote: > | > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Medicine is more expensive here because it is BETTER Ah, the big lie. Based on results, it is #38 in the world. But then again I guess you think WHO is just a bunch of commies. | > | > In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote: | > | > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] | Ah, the big lie. Based on results, it is #38 in the world. But then | again I guess you think WHO is just a bunch of commies. No, but the WHO is run by the UN - a gaggle of third raters without a moral center. I wouldn't believe anything they say. Just for fun, how do they manage to rate us #38? What are the criteria? Who are the 37 that are better? PC > | > | > In alt.support.diabetes Proconsul <nospam@nospam.org> wrote: > | > | > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > PC I knew you were going to reject anything but your own opinions, based on moral centers, not medical outcomes. Ayn Rand was the most harmful pseudo-intellectual who every lived here. | > | > Read past posts again, slowly, for comprehension..... | > | > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] | moral centers, not medical outcomes. Ayn Rand was the most harmful | pseudo-intellectual who every lived here. I "rejected" nothing - I asked you to answer a few fact based questions. It's interesting to note that you can't/won't and went right back to bashing others.....:) Quit while you're behind....:) PC > | > | > Read past posts again, slowly, for comprehension..... > | > | > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > PC Dealing with your pseudo-facts? The WHO clearly stated their criteria, and it was all posted on tpm at the time. If you remain ignornant, I suggest you look at the archives. > > Medicine is more expensive here because it is BETTER > > Ah, the big lie. Based on results, it is #38 in the world. But then > again I guess you think WHO is just a bunch of commies. And in your puny little mind, a neurosurgery hospital that does only routine cases and has a 80% success ratio is twice as good a the neurosurgery hospital that specializes in high risk cases and has a 40% success ratio. > | > > I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to > | > <snipped for brevity) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > open competition - whenever you have a free market and competition, quality > goes up and costs go down....that's an a priori truth..... So one reason is that we probably have inaccurate figures to calculate the costs. I agree that is almost certainly true. I think there are many other reasons such a difference may exist - and suffice it to say it does advance the cause of promoting a single payer system. I think to have a discussion on this (and let's face it, aside from Ilena's rants on breast implants, this has been the overwhelming topic of debate here for years), we need to analyze the information people throw, as you did above, rather than just accept the information as gospel. > I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to > add/neutralize some of the extremist portions of your argument - which [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of BOTH sides of this issue, so be careful of attacking people in the > middle... since people like me are (or should be) your target audience... MDs have created a system good for providers, not patients. No matter what is proposed you will pick it apart as not good enough so there will be no change. Medicine will remain a privilege limited to those with cash or what can be begged. > Medicine will remain a privilege limited to those with cash or > what can be begged. Just like food, clothing, shelter, automobiles, gasoline, and all the other material things in life. None of these things are free. Someone, somewhere, has to pay for everything. What you want is to be able to receive "free" medical care, paid for by others. It doesn't work that way. SignatureI hate spam, but that isn't really part of my email address. Remove the string "HatesSpam" from this email address before you use it: BobHatesSpam@Blaylock.to Ever wonder what it'd be like to be a blood-sucking parasite? http://tinyurl.com/7wxk > > Medicine will remain a privilege limited to those with cash or > > what can be begged. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What you want is to be able to receive "free" medical care, paid for > by others. It doesn't work that way. Nonsense. Nothing is free but maybe the air. Medical care is all paid for....by SOMEBODY. It would be nice if that was laid out in a more fair way, instead of overcharging those who have insurance and those who do pay for their care, to make up for those who do not. SignatureRegards, Evelyn (to reply to me personally, remove 'sox") >> > Medicine will remain a privilege limited to those with cash or >> > what can be begged. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >insurance and those who do pay for their care, to make up for those who do >not. Interesting. I have insurance. If the hospital charges $5000.00 U$ and my insurance company says they cover only 4000.00 of that and my copay is 15.00 or 50.00(when admitted to hospital) I do not pay the difference. "who does?" when I had no insurance and did not qualify for any financial aid from the state, if the bill was 5000.00 I paid all 5000.00, granted over time on monthly payments. who really pays? the uninsured. Mâck©® Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org In tribute to the United States of America and the State of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and terrorism. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt Have you heard of the NO-CARB Diet for 2004? NO C-heney NO A-shcroft NO R-umsfeld NO B-ush On Mon, 24 May 2004 13:36:50 -0400, Mâck©® <asdnospamiBADave@example.com> wrote: >>> What you want is to be able to receive "free" medical care, paid for >>> by others. It doesn't work that way. No one's asking for that. We just want it applied to everyone, and the costs also. Kinda funny how you neo-cons always claim to read people's mindds. That explains Nancy Reagan using tarot cards and seeing a psychic, and having Ronnie run his life to whatever that stargazer said. Cuz she KNOWS, lol!!!! | >> > Medicine will remain a privilege limited to those with cash or | >> > what can be begged. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] | | "who does?" Nobody does - if the hospital accepts the insurance, that's what they "take"..... I had a "same day" minor surgery a couple of years ago - I was in the hospital less than four hours. The bill for the hospital was $17,000 and change. They took $2500 as they always do - they wildly inflate costs and then take what they get from the insurance companies.....but they ALL have hordes of bureaucrats/clerical help working three shifts a day pushing paper....and that wildly inflates all costs.....! Cost are also wildly escalated since somebody, you, me and others who pay taxes, have to pay for those who receive medical care for which they pay nothing, like illegal aliens and the destitute.... | when I had no insurance and did not qualify for any financial aid from | the state, if the bill was 5000.00 I paid all 5000.00, granted over [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | | the uninsured. If you were an illegal alien, you would pay nothing - think about it..... PC >| who really pays? >| [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >PC thanks to our current president too. > thanks to our current president too. Other than giving a drug benefit to the elderly (for which they are extremely ungrateful!) our current president has had no impact, positive or negative, on the health delivery system. And the Democratic alternative is more of the same. > >| who really pays? > >| [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > thanks to our current president too. That's a lie. The liberal activist courts (not the people, of course) ruled that anyone coming here, even illegally, was "entitled" to free care - long before Bush was ever in public office. Bush is full of crap on his immigration policies (but not, of course, as bad as the Democrats), but you can't blame him for the mandates that we give illegals free health care (and free education too, for that matter). Here's a recent example of the courts' handiwork: COMING TO AMERICA Judges: $2 million illegal should have stayed in U.S. Appeals court says hospital erred in sending Guatemalan home after 2 years of treatment A federal court ruled yesterday a Florida hospital that provided over $2 million in care to an injured illegal alien was wrong to send him back to Guatemala, which means the man could possibly travel back to the U.S. for additional medical treatment. Yesterday's action by the 4th District Court of Appeals reverses a June court order by Circuit Judge John E. Fennelly that authorized Martin Memorial Medical Center in Stuart, Fla., to charter a jet to fly brain-damaged Luis Alberto Jimenez to a hospital in his home country of Guatemala. Here's the part I like the best: According to the report, Jimenez spent less than two weeks at the Guatemalan hospital before he was discharged because he couldn't pay his bill. The 32-year-old now stays at his mother's home in Guatemala. Martin Memorial spokesman Miguel Coty said the hospital was weighing its options. There more at http://www.nbpc.net/news/gen/may04/court_reverses_deportation_order.htm > Have you heard of the NO-CARB Diet for 2004? > > NO C-heney > NO A-shcroft > NO R-umsfeld > NO B-ush Definitely the diet of choice for fat heads, anti-Semites and supporters of terrorism. > > Have you heard of the NO-CARB Diet for 2004? > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Definitely the diet of choice for fat heads, anti-Semites and supporters of > terrorism. You have branded yourself an a.shole by branding all non-republicans with this broad brush. We are the TRUE patriots, hating what Bush and Co. has done to our country, our young men fighting overseas and our image in the world. It has nothing at all to do with endorsing the behavior of Islamofascists. SignatureRegards, Evelyn (to reply to me personally, remove 'sox") > > > Have you heard of the NO-CARB Diet for 2004? > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You have branded yourself an a.shole by branding all non-republicans with > this broad brush. What makes you think all non-Republicans are too foolish to understand what's at stake in these elections? The choice in 2004 is between Bush and Kerry. Bush and Co. have managed to prevent another occurrence of 9/11 for almost 3 years - something almost no one predicted. We will, most likely, be hit again, especially if the terrorists want to try to repeat their victory in Spain. But we are still far better off than anyone could have expected, and that is in large part due to Bush's actions in taking out the Taliban and Saddam and putting the Patriot Act in place, undoing some of the damage the Clinton people did. After seeing what happened to Saddam and his sons, Libya's Qaddafi gave up his WMD programs - programs the vaunted IAEA had NO clue were going on. Clinton had 8 years to do something - anything - to fight terrorism. And all he did was make it impossible for the intelligence agencies to connect the dots (Jamie Gorelick's wall, put up in part to protect Clinton from investigations into his illegal fund raising from communist Chinese agents), let bin Laden go when he was offered up to him several times and let N. Korea obtain nuclear weapons, which is now our most dangerous threat. Similarly, Kerry in more than 20 years in public office has come down on the WRONG side of almost EVERY national security issue. Even by liberal Democrat standards, Kerry is an anti-defense extremist. From his support for the communist North Vietnamese to his tragically stupid prediction that only 2000 to 3000 South Vietnamese were at risk of recrimination for their association with the U.S. In fact, 700,000 were put into communist "reeducation camps" and many did not survive. Another million became "boat people." And then, of course, there were the killing fields of Cambodia where at least 2 million were exterminated. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12012 "Kerry in 1984 said he would have voted to cancel ... the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system. He also advocated reductions in many other systems, such as the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet." He supported communists in El Salvador and the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, even going there to negotiate with Daniel Ortega in 1985 (an illegal act, by the way). Kerry opposed the MX missile, the deployment of Pershings in Europe and SDI - all central to winning the Cold War. If Kerry had it his way, the Soviet Union would still be going strong. And worst of all, Kerry has shown NO evidence of have learned any lessons from his multitude of mistakes. > We are the TRUE patriots, hating what Bush and Co. has done to our country, > our young men fighting overseas and our image in the world. That's the reaction of the left - the same people who hated Reagan as he was winning the Cold War. Patriots do NOT require permission from the miserable French (who sold out to the Nazis and formed the Vichy government and sold out to Saddam to help steal billions of dollars from the poor, dying Iraqi citizens) to defend our country. > It has nothing at all to do with endorsing the behavior of Islamofascists. But it DOES have to do with helping them achieving their goals, even if it's unintentional. The people who called Churchill a "war monger" and whole heartedly supported Neville Chamberlain helped Hitler achieve his goals - until the U.S.A. got involved. But now, there is no one else to bail us out of our fatal stupidity if we put another Democrat in charge of our national security. The game's over. "We make war so that we may live in peace." - Aristotle Modern liberals feed the crocodile, hoping it will eat them last. <Bush support and clipped to keep it brief.> Dear FF, My wife and I are registered Republicans and we plan to vote for Kerry. It comes down to: 1) Too many body bags (coffins) quietly arriving at Dover AFB in Delaware. 1a) Reagan was the last President to pay his respects to the dead as they arrived at Dover AFB. Neither Bush has done this vital duty. My USAF retired wife will not consider Bush for reelection until he pays his respects to the dead in public. She's right. 2) Too little job creation so "It's the economy stupid." Just like his father's mistake that brought in Clinton. 2a) Too many Green Cards taking jobs from US citizens. 2b) Too much support for outsourcing off-shore. 2c) These economic policies will destroy the tax paying middle class that will have a profound long-term effect on Government and infrastructure. 3) GW seems to be finishing his father's administration (with Saddam) instead of being an independent thinker and going his own way with a fresh look at World issues. He upset the UN and now we're in deep hockey in Iraq without World support. IMO, Iraq will be GW's Waterloo. In short, I'm willing to try another leader. Just toss the dice. Any change will do, SignatureJim Dumas T1 4/86, background retinopathy, rarely hypoglycemic: <1/mo. lispro+R+U+NPH daily, moderate exercise, typically <6% HbA1c [Note, I've added talk.politics.medicine back because that's where I read this thread.] > <Bush support and clipped to keep it brief.> Actually, it wasn't so much Bush support (he's far too liberal on domestic spending issues for me) as it was Kerry opposition. > Dear FF, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > retired wife will not consider Bush for reelection until he pays his > respects to the dead in public. She's right. That's a rather silly reason. I know a number of ex-military, including one from the Marine Special Forces who served behind the lines in the first Gulf War. All of them strongly support Bush, as do the overwhelming percentage of military judging from all surveys I've seen. The Democrats have "loathed" the military for decades, and show it in their financial support. John Kerry voted to authorize combat, then voted against needed supplies, including body armor. (And if you think that means I'm not critical of Bush, you're wrong. His administration took far too long to armor the HumVees for example.) Kerry's fellow swift boat operators consider him unfit to be Commander in Chief. http://www.swiftvets.com/Index2.htm And his voting record on national security issues can only lead to the same conclusion. By all means, if you want to lose the war on terror, vote for Kerry. > 2) Too little job creation so "It's the economy stupid." Just like his > father's mistake that brought in Clinton. It appears you're relying on the left wing media, which has become the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party (and getting to be the propaganda arm for the terrorists) for too much of your information. The economy is doing quite well - far better than could be expected given the recession, the high tech bubble burst and the large stock market downturn Bush inherited from Clinton, followed by 9/11 that cost our economy $500 Billion and millions of lost jobs. Change in employment by occupation during President Clinton's final Budget Year - fourth quarter 2000 to fourth quarter 2001 Occupation.................................Thousands Executive, administrative, and managerial......518 Professional specialty.........................330 Technicians and related support.................34 Farming, forestry, and fishing...................1 Service occupations............................-31 Precision production, craft, and repair.......-249 Administrative support including clerical.....-460 Sales occupations.............................-645 Operators, fabricators, and laborers..........-864 Total Job Losses in final FY of Office: 2,249,000 Source: BLS We have 867,000 new jobs though April. If the media were not so partisan, that would be making front page headlines. Growth is at 4%. > 2a) Too many Green Cards taking jobs from US citizens. Green Cards? You mean LEGAL immigrants? That's not a big problem. The big problem is the ILLEGALS. Bush is terrible on that issue. But the Democrats are worse. > 2b) Too much support for outsourcing off-shore. And what do you propose we do about that? (Perhaps Teresa HEINZ Kerry should do something about HER company first.) Should we prevent companies from doing outsourcing? All that will do is cause those companies to lose to competitors based off shore, throwing many more Americans out of work. I work for a software company that is outsourcing high tech jobs off-shore and am not crazy about the idea, since it is obviously a potential threat to my job. But, we're in a tough competitive environment and if we don't keep productive enough, everyone at my company will lose his job. My personal job security can only come from keeping up with current knowledge and understanding my business far better than any contractor - on-shore or off-shore - could. Incidentally, there's a fair amount of evidence that, at least among higher level positions, outsourcing may be a fad that will soon fade. From the New York Times: April 28, 2004 Send Jobs to India? Some Find It's Not Always Best By EDUARDO PORTER Even as the prospect of high-skilled American jobs moving to low-wage countries like India ignites hot political debate, some entrepreneurs are finding that India's vaunted high-technology work force is not always as effective as advertised. "For three years we tried all kinds of models, but nothing has worked so far," said the co-founder and chief technology officer of Storability Software in Southborough, Mass. After trying to reduce costs by contracting out software programming tasks to India, Storability brought back most of the work to the United States, where it costs four times as much, and hired more programmers here. The "depth of knowledge in the area we want to build software is not good enough" among Indian programmers, the executive said. If it sounds like "Made in the U.S.A." jingoism, consider this: The entrepreneur, Hemant Kurande, is Indian. He was born and raised near Bombay and received his master's degree from the Indian Institute of Technology in that city, now known as Mumbai. Mr. Kurande is not alone in his views on "outsourcing" technology work to India. As more companies in the United States rush to take advantage of India's ample supply of cheap yet highly trained workers, even some of the most motivated American companies - ones set up or run by executives born and trained in India - are concluding that the cost advantage does not always justify the effort. For many of the most crucial technology tasks, they find that a work force operating within the American business environment better suits their needs. As for the long term solution, the answer is better education. Why do you think India has become such a magnet for all sorts of American jobs? Because they educate their people much better than we do, especially in math and science. It is the Democrats who have ruined our public education system by turning it into a laboratory for failed social engineering and educational fads and destroying standards for achievement. American students score well below other countries. The interesting thing about that is we stand up well until about the 4th grade, then go rapidly downhill; i.e., the longer our kids are in public school, the behinder they get. It is so screwed up in many places, the only solution is vouchers. And, as the pawns of the NEA, the Democrats have done everything in their power to obstruct them, condemning generations - especially of inner city minorities - to lives of near poverty. And by the way, the Democrats obstruction of development of domestic oil sources, in ANWR and elsewhere, not only makes us more dependent on foreign oil and drives up the costs, but in effect off-shores 1.7 million jobs in the oil and related industries every year. > 2c) These economic policies will destroy the tax paying middle class that > will have a profound long-term effect on Government and infrastructure. Well, since you're way off on the current state of the economy, it's no wonder you're wrong here too. There is, however, a real long term threat to our economy that will destroy the middle class - Medicare and Social Security. Together they have unfunded liabilities - i.e., statutory promises of payment beyond tax revenues - of well over $24 Trillion (that's twelve time our current GDP). Obviously, we cannot tax our way to solvency, so the only solution short declaring bankruptcy and dismantling them (my choice, actually) is serious reform. And it's Democrats who have obstructed any reform because scaring seniors that their benefits will be cut (every reform program I've seen leaves current recipients untouched - also a mistake in my opinion) is such a wonderful campaign issue. > 3) GW seems to be finishing his father's administration (with Saddam) > instead of being an independent thinker and going his own way with a fresh [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Just toss the dice. Any change will do, That's insane. What that means is things couldn't possibly get worse. That kind of (non)thinking is one reason the people elected Jimmy Carter, one of the worst presidents in history, who destroyed the economy, almost lost the Cold War, and helped the radical Islamic movement we are at war with get off the ground. You think a $900 billion tax increase will HELP the economy? You think giving pusillanimous countries like France, Germany and Russia that were in bed with Saddam, , ripping the Iraqi people off by the billions, or Spain, that turned tail and ran after al Qaida "cast its vote" veto power over our national defense will make our foreign policy better? > [Note, I've added talk.politics.medicine back because that's where I read > this thread.] [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > That's a rather silly reason. I'm sitting here on Memorial Day and asking myself: "Why have so many soldiers died in Iraq?" The answer is simple, we had no idea what we were getting into. This means the Government has poorly planned the peace time metamorphosis of Iraq into a productive World member. This tells me that the President has poor advisors and is himself, a poor leader. So let's give somebody else a chance to clean up the mess we're in. Next, I think my wife has a valid point. Actions speak louder than words. The first Bush administration placed a media ban on the body bags (coffins) flying into Dover AFB in the first Gulf War (which my wife is a vet of so this issue is still burning within her). She considers this a form of censorship (she says: "What are we fighting for? This Censorship?") and hopes the current administration will correct this mistake. More importantly, she thinks this demonstrates a character flaw in the President, since he has not paid his respects in person at Dover AFB, for the sacrifice of their lives when our Great Country was not truely under attack by Saddam. (When did Saddam declare war on the US? I must have missed it.) In short, she thinks this lack of reverence for the dead shows a President out of touch with the front line soldier, the pawns in this game the President is poorly orchestrating. I could nit-pick on the rest of your post. But this is the core issue. So how do you explain all the deaths in Iraq? SignatureJim Dumas T1 4/86, background retinopathy, rarely hypoglycemic: <1/mo. lispro+R+U+NPH daily, moderate exercise, typically <6% HbA1c > So how do you explain all the deaths in Iraq? Our belief in the Great God technology. We have all been lead to believe that war can be fought without death. 1,000 dead? That's the number that died on Florida highways in the same period. That's roughly the number of active military that die during peacetime. It's the number of bodies processed by a single funeral home each year. The administration's inept prosecution of the war is a shame, but the loss of American will to win is what will lose it. And how did this thread get so far off topic? > And how did this thread get so far off topic? It got posted to Usenet, that's how. SignatureWes Groleau "Grant me the serenity to accept those I cannot change; the courage to change the one I can; and the wisdom to know it's me." -- unknown >> So how do you explain all the deaths in Iraq? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And how did this thread get so far off topic? When you attempt to justify the deaths, you lose the argument because there is no good reason for this to have happened. Al Qaeda is a valid target post 9/11, but Saddam was not. Saddam did not have a strong connection to Al Qaeda and therefore was a side issue that has become a major distraction. In short, I don't think we should shed any American blood to change the balance of power in Iraq. The first Gulf War was necessary since Saddam was invading Kuwait. But I think we've made a mistake on this one. Don't get me wrong, I support the troops. But I think we need to move our people out of harms way ASAP. This means we need a President with strong negotiation skills to broker peace and GW clearly fails here. Finally, I have no idea how this thread transposed into an election year free-for-all. Just a permutation of our complex World, I guess. SignatureJim Dumas T1 4/86, background retinopathy, rarely hypoglycemic: <1/mo. lispro+R+U+NPH daily, moderate exercise, typically <6% HbA1c >>> So how do you explain all the deaths in Iraq? >> Our belief in the Great God technology. We have all been lead to believe >> that war can be fought without death. >> 1,000 dead? That's the number that died on Florida highways in the same >> period. That's roughly the number of active military that die during >> peacetime. It's the number of bodies processed by a single funeral home >> each year. >> The administration's inept prosecution of the war is a shame, but the >> loss of American will to win is what will lose it. >> And how did this thread get so far off topic? >When you attempt to justify the deaths, you lose the argument because there >is no good reason for this to have happened. Al Qaeda is a valid target >post 9/11, but Saddam was not. Saddam did not have a strong connection to >Al Qaeda and therefore was a side issue that has become a major >distraction. In short, I don't think we should shed any American blood to >change the balance of power in Iraq. >The first Gulf War was necessary since Saddam was invading Kuwait. But I >think we've made a mistake on this one. Don't get me wrong, I support the >troops. But I think we need to move our people out of harms way ASAP. >This means we need a President with strong negotiation skills to broker >peace and GW clearly fails here. Stop assuming the impossible; I am afraid all sides are claiming that this CAN be done. There are SOME moderate Sunnis and a FEW moderate Shiites who are can consider negotiating from a position of trying to get what they consider at least acceptable results for all. There was a piece in the _New York Times_ pointing out that it took the British more that 10 years to get a government established in Iraq after WWI. I doubt if any of our leaders were aware of this. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 >>The first Gulf War was necessary since Saddam was invading Kuwait. But I >>think we've made a mistake on this one. Don't get me wrong, I support the >>troops. But I think we need to move our people out of harms way ASAP. >>This means we need a President with strong negotiation skills to broker >>peace and GW clearly fails here. >Stop assuming the impossible; I am afraid all sides are >claiming that this CAN be done. There are SOME moderate >Sunnis and a FEW moderate Shiites who are can consider >negotiating from a position of trying to get what they >consider at least acceptable results for all. >There was a piece in the _New York Times_ pointing out >that it took the British more that 10 years to get a >government established in Iraq after WWI. I doubt if >any of our leaders were aware of this. I'd be very surprised if some of their British advisors (Blair, British Ambassador, etc.) hadn't pointed this out, even if some of their American advisors hadn't. Far more likely IMHO is that it *was* pointed out but They Didn't Want To Know. -- Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] >Subject: Re: Single Payer Universal Health Care >From: Jim Dumas >I'm sitting here on Memorial Day and asking myself: "Why have so many >soldiers died in Iraq?" >The answer is simple, we had no idea what we were getting into. This means >the Government has poorly planned the peace time metamorphosis of Iraq into >a productive World member. This tells me that the President has poor >advisors and is himself, a poor >leader. So let's give somebody else a >chance to clean up the mess we're in. Despite what little Bush has said, we are not at peace in Iraq. We are still at war. And his planning, if one wants to call it that, was and is lacking in every respect. >Next, I think my wife has a valid point. Actions speak louder than words. >The first Bush administration placed a media ban on the body bags (coffins) >flying into Dover AFB in the first Gulf War (which my wife is a vet of so >this issue is still burning within her). She considers this a form of >censorship (she says: "What are we fighting for? This Censorship?") and >hopes the current administration will correct this mistake. >More importantly, she thinks this demonstrates a character flaw in the >President, since he has not paid his respects in person at Dover AFB, for >the sacrifice of their lives when our Great Country was not truely under >attack by Saddam. (When did >Saddam declare war on the US? I must have >missed it.) In short, she thinks this lack of reverence for the dead shows >a President out of touch with the front line soldier, the pawns in this >game the President is poorly orchestrating. What do you expect from a person who lied about his National Guard service. Who jumped over many other deserving young men to get into the Texas National Guard by the use of his daddie's friends. Who made a pretend landing on an air craft carrier, thank heavens he didn't miss. And one expects him to honor the men and women who have deid under his command. Tell your wife not to hold her breath. The family of a young friend are still waiting. He graduated from West Point in 2002. And was in Iraq seven weeks when he was killed. Denise > And one expects him to honor the men and women who have deid under his > command. Tell your wife not to hold her breath. The family of a young > friend are still waiting. He graduated from West Point in 2002. And > was in Iraq seven weeks when he was killed. Hi Denise, This experience brings it closer to heart. I watch the McNeil News Hour on PBS, and at the end the dead are remembered with a picture, age, rank, hometown, etc. It begins to sink-in, after a few weeks, that this is a problem we must do something to stop. Thanks for your post, SignatureJim Dumas T1 4/86, background retinopathy, rarely hypoglycemic: <1/mo. lispro+R+U+NPH daily, moderate exercise, typically <6% HbA1c > I watch the McNeil News Hour on PBS It used to be the McNeil Lehrer News Hour but McNeil retired a few years ago. I still think of it as McNeil Lehrer. But it's the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Wrong name, sorry. SignatureJim Dumas T1 4/86, background retinopathy, rarely hypoglycemic: <1/mo. lispro+R+U+NPH daily, moderate exercise, typically <6% HbA1c >I'm sitting here on Memorial Day and asking myself: "Why have so many >soldiers died in Iraq?" [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >So how do you explain all the deaths in Iraq? I have always been disgusted with the scheme where some get rich and tout war. As has been said the buck stops at the white house and one person takes the ultimate responsibility. They take the credit and take the blame. Some others should take positions where they are qualified. But most refuse collection jobs are not available now. But for some natural reason we are the survivors of the natural selection process. So it will go on until that big rock come screaming in from space. The range of personalities we see here has made me aware of the limitations of our brains. So much of it is a ROM and single channel processing.. JIm, you have the right idea but there is no solution. The election does not make much difference. But those responsible for mistakes should be rewarded properly. Today I see a lot of "them" in very rich retirement communities still spouting their bull. Guy > > [Note, I've added talk.politics.medicine back because that's where I read > > this thread.] [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I'm sitting here on Memorial Day and asking myself: "Why have so many > soldiers died in Iraq?" Rather than just sitting there, you should go back and read the predictions of mass casualties that would result from having to wage urban warfare in large cities full of unidentifiable hostiles, of Saddam's "scorched earth" plans, humanitarian disaster, etc. > The answer is simple, we had no idea what we were getting into. This means > the Government has poorly planned the peace time metamorphosis of Iraq into > a productive World member. This tells me that the President has poor > advisors and is himself, a poor leader. So let's give somebody else a > chance to clean up the mess we're in. New Scientist predicted 500,000 Iraqi deaths - mostly civilians. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993043 The UN's chief emergency relief coordinator reported on 2/13 that there will be 600,000 to 1.4 million refugees and asylum seekers as well as 2 million left homeless in the country, and up to 10 million requiring food assistance. "Approximately 50% of the population may be without access to water." CARE and UNICEF agree that water and sanitation were the top concerns. UN officials were stockpiling supplies but were worried that about 60% of the population is dependent on state aid for food and cooking fuel (Washington Post, 1/7/03). The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War forecasted in late November [2002] that a post-war scene could include civil war, famine, epidemics, millions of refugees, and economic collapse. Teddy Kennedy said a war on Saddam might cause an unprecedented humanitarian crisis with an estimated 900,000 refugees, a pandemic and an environmental disaster as Saddam lit the oilfields on fire. Kennedy even quoted General Joseph Hoar, who warned that when urban warfare broke out in Baghdad, the U.S. could run through "battalions a day at a time" and that the fighting would look like "the last fifteen minutes of 'Private Ryan.'" How quickly we forget. I guess I'm naive to expect people to remember the lessons of the 1930s when they can't even remember a year ago. It's time to require testing before people are allowed to vote before we vote ourselves into extinction. > Next, I think my wife has a valid point. Actions speak louder than words. > The first Bush administration placed a media ban on the body bags (coffins) > flying into Dover AFB in the first Gulf War (which my wife is a vet of so > this issue is still burning within her). She considers this a form of > censorship (she says: "What are we fighting for? This Censorship?") and > hopes the current administration will correct this mistake. > More importantly, she thinks this demonstrates a character flaw in the > President, since he has not paid his respects in person at Dover AFB, for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I could nit-pick on the rest of your post. But this is the core issue. How should a President honor the war dead? by Kevin Baker http://www.americanheritage.com/xml/2004/1/2004_1_dept_innews.xml Our leaders have rarely attended the funerals of military personnel or of any other individuals, because, in the words of Laura Spencer, an archivist at the presidential library of President George H. W. Bush, they "didn't want to pick and choose" and because they were conscious first of their duty to the living. Instead, most of our Presidents have confined themselves to ceremonies that commemorate our war dead in general. Their motives for this have generally been deduced, rather than stated. What President, after all, would want to say outright that he could not attend the funeral of one casualty of war because he expected there to be so many more? Yet George Washington, as in so much else, laid down an explicit precedent on the subject, albeit in the case of a prominent civilian. Invited to attend the funeral of Cornelia Roosevelt, wife of the New York Senator Isaac Roosevelt, in the first year of his Presidency, Washington declined, even though the national government was in New York City. Were he to attend, our first President wrote, "it might be difficult to discriminate in cases which might thereafter happen." -- End of excerpt -- There is another reason for this. The media are on the side of the enemy and will use such opportunities to spew their anti-American propaganda (for which you have apparently fallen). You want proof of the media's treachery? How come when they read the names of the fallen, they only read the names of those killed in Iraq, not Afghanistan? The media was largely responsible for our loss in Vietnam, leading to the deaths of millions of Southeast Asians. Now people like you are letting the media repeat that treachery. It's a damn good thing we didn't have today's American media and today's American public wasn't so feckless during WWII - we would have quit after the 6 months of getting our a.ses kicked all over the Pacific. And the consequences of losing this war on terrorism are far more serious than if we had lost WWII. We were still a relatively safe island nation back then. No more. > So how do you explain all the deaths in Iraq? They are the sad consequence of decades of anti-military policies, mostly by Democrats, but also some Republicans who find they can buy more votes handing out welfare, Social Security and Medicare checks than they can defending our national security. If we had not cut military forces so much, especially under Clinton, we could have deployed more soldiers. MAYBE that would have helped, maybe not. But they are also a consequence of a radical aversion to doing what we did in WWII - kill the enemy in large numbers even at the cost of civilian casualties. I don't like it. But any Democrat, especially Kerry, would only make it worse. > There is another reason for this. The media are on the side of the enemy > and > will use such opportunities to spew their anti-American propaganda (for > which you have apparently fallen). Dear FF, You're drawing unfounded conclusions to support your arguments. I personally sized up the Iraq-Rush-to-War by GW as unnecessary since Saddam was contained by the previous actions. So there was no need to sacrifice our youngsters in this contrived Iraqi conflict, when our shores were not under attack by Saddam. This Iraqi campaign has taken valuable resources from the Bin Laden - Al Qaeda primary objective; and, this demonstrates poor leadership by GW. So IMO, it's time for the People to relieve GW of command for dragging the country into an unnecessary conflict. > You want proof of the media's treachery? How come when they read the > names of the fallen, they only read the names of those killed in Iraq, not > Afghanistan? You say potato and I say patato. You seem to be more of a problem than the news media, IMO. > The media was largely responsible for our loss in Vietnam, leading to the > deaths of millions of Southeast Asians. Now people like you are letting [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >> So how do you explain all the deaths in Iraq? This isn't WWII where war was declared by all parties. Instead GW clobbered Saddam and nobody declared war. So GW is directly responsible for the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq and there is no good reason for this to have happened. That is, you have yet to make a convincing argument that this war with Iraq was necessary for national security. > They are the sad consequence of decades of anti-military policies, mostly > by Democrats, but also some Republicans who find they can buy more votes [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I don't like it. But any Democrat, especially Kerry, would only make it > worse. I voted for GW and am ashamed I did. So I want him out. (period) SignatureJim Dumas T1 4/86, background retinopathy, rarely hypoglycemic: <1/mo. lispro+R+U+NPH daily, moderate exercise, typically <6% HbA1c > The choice in 2004 is between Bush and Kerry. Bush and Co. have managed to > prevent another occurrence of 9/11 for almost 3 years - something almost no > one predicted. And succeeded as well in killing 800 US soldiers in IRAQ, a country terrorist free before the war because Sadam did not allow them in the country. Iraq was not a theocracy like the one we will end up with now. We will, most likely, be hit again, especially if the > terrorists want to try to repeat their victory in Spain. But we are still > far better off than anyone could have expected, and that is in large part > due to Bush's actions in taking out the Taliban and Saddam Why would you equate the removal of Saddam with us not being the victim of another attack? Well I guess the fact that most terrorists have flocked to Iraq now could be a reason. -- snipped nonsensical drivel --- > He supported communists in El Salvador and the communist Sandinistas in > Nicaragua, even going there to negotiate with Daniel Ortega in 1985 (an > illegal act, by the way). Ad we supported wrongly the folks torturing and killing ordinary Salvadorans. By the way being awl is a crime as well (laugh) > "We make war so that we may live in peace." - Aristotle > Modern liberals feed the crocodile, hoping it will eat them last. "An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind" Ghandi www.ronnieruff.org >> The choice in 2004 is between Bush and Kerry. Bush and Co. have managed to >> prevent another occurrence of 9/11 for almost 3 years - something almost no >> one predicted. >And succeeded as well in killing 800 US soldiers in IRAQ, a country >terrorist free before the war because Sadam did not allow them in the >country. Iraq was not a theocracy like the one we will end up with now. > We will, most likely, be hit again, especially if the >> terrorists want to try to repeat their victory in Spain. But we are still >> far better off than anyone could have expected, and that is in large part >> due to Bush's actions in taking out the Taliban and Saddam >Why would you equate the removal of Saddam with us not being the victim >of another attack? Well I guess the fact that most terrorists have >flocked to Iraq now could be a reason. ....................... >> He supported communists in El Salvador and the communist Sandinistas in >> Nicaragua, even going there to negotiate with Daniel Ortega in 1985 (an >> illegal act, by the way). >Ad we supported wrongly the folks torturing and killing ordinary >Salvadorans. Do you think the Sandinistas did not also do this? Being a quasi-religious society of fanatics, it did not leak the same way, but it was still there. However, they worked mostly by brainwashing, and to some extent, allowed those who did not agree to leave, which the opposition would as well; one cannot reason with fanatics. >By the way being awl is a crime as well (laugh) >> "We make war so that we may live in peace." - Aristotle >> Modern liberals feed the crocodile, hoping it will eat them last. >"An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind" >Ghandi Gandhi's policies worked ONLY because the British were both too few, and also unwilling to kill Indians, and in fact did not even want to rule or convert them. India could have had its independence any time it had agreed on how. They would not have worked against Muslims or Chinese. Look at Southern Sudan. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 >>Ad we supported wrongly the folks torturing and killing ordinary >>Salvadorans. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > who did not agree to leave, which the opposition would as > well; one cannot reason with fanatics. In the US anyone in Central America that was poor and wanted the Military dictators thrown out was a Sandinista. It sure is good our founding fathers were not considered communists for throwing out the British. When will we learn our way of government is not for every country. Why is it a government different from ours is a threat. Ronnie Ruff www.ronnieruff.org In alt.support.diabetes Ronnie Ruff <ronnie_ruff@hotmail.com> wrote: > When will we learn our way of government is not for every country. Why > is it a government different from ours is a threat. To people who have difficulty thinking anyone who disagrees is a serious problem. The mistake is allowing such people to be in charge of things, especially big powerful things like armies. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] >> Medicine will remain a privilege limited to those with cash or >> what can be begged. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What you want is to be able to receive "free" medical care, paid for >by others. It doesn't work that way. Rather, what you want is to be as selfish as you can for as long as you can, until of course you can get it too. > > I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to > > add/neutralize some of the extremist portions of your argument - which [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > no change. Medicine will remain a privilege limited to those with cash or > what can be begged. Go find another thread. This one is over your head and I am trying to advance the level of conversation beyond your halfwitted post above. If you'd like to join in, take some time, put some thought in, and provide a full and detailed post addressing all the relevant points made. It's called an adult conversation. > > Pre-existing illnesses are > > being used to deny coverage. > > Yes. Will a singler payer change that? With single payer, you've always had the coverage, so how can there be a pre-existing condition? Jon > > > Pre-existing illnesses are > > > being used to deny coverage. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > With single payer, you've always had the coverage, so how can there be a pre-existing > condition? Will all coverage be equal? Will there be levels of coverage? Will there be coinsurance? >> > > Pre-existing illnesses are >> > > being used to deny coverage. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Will all coverage be equal? Will there be levels of coverage? Will there >be coinsurance? In most of the models in use today, the basic coverage will be equal, but you can buy better coverage (health funds in Australia, BUPA in the UK), That gets you usually is a shorter queue, if it something that is going to kill you in the immediate future, the basic system works quite well. As for the nay sayers, I'd like to point a few things. By most measurments, the average health of US citizens is at best marginally better then the average Australian or European, however we are probably spending 3 times as much for that marginal improvement, and what you really see is a small portion in the USA who get really outstanding care, a large portion that get care that may be only slightly better then the average in the rest of industrialized world, and a large number who get essentially no care. That component that gets nothing is missing in much of the rest of the industrialized world. WE do lots of things in the USA that run up costs enormously with little benefit. One of the most interesting live demonstration of what altering the landscape will do is in Australia. The Australian Government says if you need an ACE inhibitor, these are the ones on the PBS scheme. If you want another one, you can have it, but the difference between the retail price and the PBS benefit, you are going to pay for out of your own pocket. It is truly amazing how few patients are willing to spend even an extra $2 a month. What should be equally obvious is that in general, the use of the lowest cost, therapeutically effectie drug saves a pile of money without degrading the quality of care. Because in the USA, someone other than the patient usually pays, and patient is almost entirely isolated from the cost issue, as is the physician, when a patient walks in and says my shoulder is bothering me, can you write me a prescription for Celebrex or Viox? The physician will happily do so. In most of the rest of the world, the likely reply will be, 'have you tried Asprin or Ibuprofen yet?' If you haven't, you will be encouraged to do so. If that doesn't work out, then the physician may well prescribe a COX2 inhibitor. Vioxx and Celebrex probably are more effective than Asprin or Ibuprofen, the problem is that while they aren't a lot better, they are a lot more expenive! There is no cost benefit analysis being made on the front end, we just demand that we go straight to latest/greates (and most expensive drug), even though the advantages it offers over drugs that are a fraction of the price are often surprisingly small. Take a good look at the ALHAT (spelling?) trials about anti hypertensive drugs in the general population. It is an eye opening experience about cost versus benefit. > >> > > Pre-existing illnesses are > >> > > being used to deny coverage. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > that is going to kill you in the immediate future, the basic system > works quite well. If you arrive at the A&E with an active coronary, you will get a PTCA. If you are stabilized, you will get a prescription for nitroglycerine. If you show up at your GP with a lump in your breast, you will gwet a referral to a specialist - in 3 months if you are lucky. > As for the nay sayers, I'd like to point a few things. By most > measurments, the average health of US citizens is at best marginally > better then the average Australian or European, And health status is attributable directly to the level of health care available? > however we are > probably spending 3 times as much for that marginal improvement, In a recent study comparing Kaiser HMO (22 million subscribers in a model that is cionsistently available in the US) and the NHS, the costs were no different and the access and outcomes of Kaiser patients more than just marginally better. It was published in the BMJ. There were a lot of NHS'ers extremely anxious about those results. > and > what you really see is a small portion in the USA who get really > outstanding care, a large portion that get care that may be only > slightly better then the average in the rest of industrialized world, > and a large number who get essentially no care. Lack of health insurance does not mean a lack of health care. > That component that > gets nothing is missing in much of the rest of the industrialized > world. And that is why mandatory insurance is a solution, not single payer. > WE do lots of things in the USA that run up costs enormously with > little benefit. One of the most interesting live demonstration of what [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > therapeutically effectie drug saves a pile of money without degrading > the quality of care. And I would argue that you are wrong - and the reason is quite simple. Therapeutic effect is quite ferquently idiosyncratic. Therapeutic effect is variable in magnitude. Effects are offset by side effects and these tend to be more significant in the older technologies. Case in point - antidepressants. Tricyclics (of which there are a handful) are fairly effective in some patients, but not all. Tricyclics have, in many cases, rather significant side effects that impact on patient willingness to continue therapy. Most notable are the EPS effects and these can be non-reversible. On the other hand, SSRIs, though generally thought to be equally effective therapeutically, are free from EPS. This was a tremendous step forward in antidepressant therapy. > Because in the USA, someone other than the patient usually pays, and > patient is almost entirely isolated from the cost issue, as is the > physician, when a patient walks in and says my shoulder is bothering > me, can you write me a prescription for Celebrex or Viox? The > physician will happily do so. Your observation that patients are isolated from medical costs does not apply to pharmaceuticals in more cases than not, in the US. Formulary systems use various cost containment approaches to minimize program expenditures. One such approach is cost sharing - either in terms of co-insurance or in many cases, tiered copays. > In most of the rest of the world, the likely reply will be, 'have you > tried Asprin or Ibuprofen yet?' If you haven't, you will be > encouraged to do so. If that doesn't work out, then the physician may > well prescribe a COX2 inhibitor. Vioxx and Celebrex probably are more > effective than Asprin or Ibuprofen, the problem is that while they > aren't a lot better, they are a lot more expenive! And the side effect profile is different which could be important to patients at risk for certain effects. I don't agree with yiour anecdotal scenario. Have you ever experience a GP visit first hand in the UK? > There is no cost > benefit analysis being made on the front end, Please review the literature before you make statements like these. YUse pub med and type in cost effectiveness and vioxx and see what happens. > we just demand that we > go straight to latest/greates (and most expensive drug), even though > the advantages it offers over drugs that are a fraction of the price > are often surprisingly small. Take a good look at the ALHAT > (spelling?) Two LLs >...trials about anti hypertensive drugs in the general > population. It is an eye opening experience about cost versus benefit. Had you read ALLHAT you would have seen that naive hypertensives did well on monotherapy with HCTZ for about 6 months. By the end of the study, the overwhelming majority of patients were on multiple drug therapy to control their hypertension. All ALLHAT showed was what was already generally well known - stepped therapy in hypertension is an appropriate approach and the first step, with hctz is often, but not always, medically appropriate. js > Because in the USA, someone other than the patient usually pays, and > patient is almost entirely isolated from the cost issue, as is the > physician, when a patient walks in and says my shoulder is bothering > me, can you write me a prescription for Celebrex or Viox? The > physician will happily do so. That is, indeed, a major problem with the US system and I'll give you another example. I sprained my wrist, went to the corner dugstore and bought an Ace bandage. $3 and it was fine in five weeks. My Medicare friend sprained his wrist, went to the ER, X-rays, orthopedic specialist, and seven weeks of physical therapy even though it was fine in five weeks. But "rationing" has become a buzzword in the US roughly as evil as "holocaust". An insured patient who goes to a doctor with a sprained wrist and gets only an Ace bandage will certainly sue and just as certainly win. This has created another problem: US doctors are scared to death of their own patients. Very unhealthy situation. > > Because in the USA, someone other than the patient usually pays, and > > patient is almost entirely isolated from the cost issue, as is the > > physician, when a patient walks in and says my shoulder is bothering > > me, can you write me a prescription for Celebrex or Viox? The > > physician will happily do so. Why is this necessarily a bad thing? Under the assumption that there is a doctor-patient relationship and the physician does an exam to look for something other than muscle or joint pain due to exertion or perhaps a touch of arthritis, thuis makes a lot of sense. What would you do in this case? > That is, indeed, a major problem with the US system and I'll give you > another example. I sprained my wrist, went to the corner dugstore and > bought an Ace bandage. $3 and it was fine in five weeks. My Medicare > friend sprained his wrist, went to the ER, X-rays, orthopedic > specialist, and seven weeks of physical therapy even though it was fine > in five weeks. And Medicare would be that huge efficient single payer model that we all want and need? > But "rationing" has become a buzzword in the US roughly as evil as > "holocaust". An insured patient who goes to a doctor with a sprained > wrist and gets only an Ace bandage will certainly sue and just as > certainly win. If the sprain wasn't a sprain and the failure to diagnose results in a permanent disability - yes, that is what would happen. Explain to me why it shouldn't. > This has created another problem: US doctors are scared to death of > their own patients. Very unhealthy situation. I don't believe they are - they may be a bit apprehensive over their patients lawyers - so lets fix that. js > > > Because in the USA, someone other than the patient usually pays, and > > > patient is almost entirely isolated from the cost issue, as is the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > perhaps a touch of arthritis, thuis makes a lot of sense. What would > you do in this case? And the answer is the same drug you asked for without spending the money. | > mike gray <scrubadub@att.net> wrote in message | news:<tLIsc.26690$fF3.685017@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | And the answer is the same drug you asked for without spending the | money. Who do you think paid for the drug? Who should pay? And, you might take a stab at the poster's question, i.e., why is this necessarily a bad thing? What WOULD you do in this case? PC > > > Because in the USA, someone other than the patient usually pays, and > > > patient is almost entirely isolated from the cost issue, as is the [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > js I have enjoyed reading your comments. It's much more pleasant debating issues without vitriol. Unfortunately, as on obstetrician I see dozens of examples every day where physicians are so afraid of litigation that they either refuse to see pregnant patients or, if they practice ob/gyn, refuse to see "high risk" pregnant patients. In the last 2 years the number of ob/gyn physicians in our metropolitan area (Orlando; about 2 million in surrounding communities) who are willing to see high risk pregnant patients has dwindled dramatically. Several of our top ob/gyns have left the area rather than risk becoming part of the liability crisis, and many others have given up obstetrics. In Dade County (Miami) the median liability premium for those practicing obstetrics is about $200,000 a year. Physicians in other specialties just don't want to be exposed to those kind of premiums. I spoke with several physicians from various specialties in the OR lounge today who made it clear that they will do anything rather than treat a pregnant patient. The statute of limitations for a newborn can be up to 21 years in Florida, and there are several hundred ads on TV and the radio in our area each week advising locals to sue their physician. One series of ads suggested that ob/gyns don't perform c/sections in a timely manner, leading to brain damage. I would love to study the c/section rate before and after that series of ads. I am awaiting the results of a recent mail-in survey to read hard data, but in the meantime, at least in Florida, fear of litigation has had a negative impact on the availability of services and quality of care for pregnant patients. Pregnant patients can provide a lottery win for trial lawyers. It's to the stage where physicians feel their careers are at risk when they care for pregnant women. Best wishes, Ashley > > mike gray <scrubadub@att.net> wrote in message > news:<tLIsc.26690$fF3.685017@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > Ashley Overall the cost of insurance in the medical business is about the same as for any other industry. However, it falls on different areas of the system in very different ways. Since physicians still follow the small business model where physicians purchase insurance one person at a time, you end up with high fees for some areas. You are in one of them Ashley. The solution is very simple: get rid of the small business model of 1900. That is the fee-for-service model, which hits both patients and physicians. The costs of malpractice need to be in large pools, perhaps whole states, so insurance companies cannot cherry pick. But at the same time patients need to be members of large pools of customers, so insurance companies cannot cherry pick among customers too. Continued use of outdated business models is the problem. > In Dade County (Miami) the median liability premium > for those practicing obstetrics is about $200,000 a year. Physicians in > other specialties just don't want to be exposed to those kind of premiums. That's about $800/day, assuming you don't get sick or take any vacation. And assuming you work a twelve hour day, that's about $70 per hour. So how may exams can ya do in an hour? If ya run through a patient every ten minutes it's about the cost of a lunch at Arby's. But if you only work 220 days a year (the average for corporate types) and eight hours a day with an hour for paperwork, and spend a half hour with each patient, that's $65 per patient visit. Just to put it into perspective. $65 per patient visit. > I spoke with several physicians from various specialties in the OR lounge > today who made it clear that they will do anything rather than treat a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > lottery win for trial lawyers. It's to the stage where physicians feel > their careers are at risk when they care for pregnant women. Yup, I also live in SoFla. Other than Kerry campaign ads, the lawyer ads are the most numerous and the most annoying. One law firm is soliciting clients that have ever had X-rays of any kind, including dental, another is soliciting clients that have ever been treated for cancer, either with radiation or chemo, yet another is soliciting clients that have ever done any welding. They all promise that, "We will get you the money you deserve". Makes me puke. But I have done a lot of welding, maybe my ship's come in. > > mike gray <scrubadub@att.net> wrote in message > news:<tLIsc.26690$fF3.685017@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > I have enjoyed reading your comments. It's much more pleasant debating > issues without vitriol. Thanks - and I play the violin, not the vitriol - but I could learn. > Unfortunately, as on obstetrician I see dozens of > examples every day where physicians are so afraid of litigation that they [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > for those practicing obstetrics is about $200,000 a year. Physicians in > other specialties just don't want to be exposed to those kind of premiums. No question that liability in the practice of medicine and the necessary insurance to mitigate the downside risk is at a critical point. I can understand and appreciate it - but this is not driven by patients - it is driven by lawyers interested in settlements and patients convinced that its easy money and they are entitled to it. > I spoke with several physicians from various specialties in the OR lounge > today who made it clear that they will do anything rather than treat a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > lottery win for trial lawyers. It's to the stage where physicians feel > their careers are at risk when they care for pregnant women. Best wishes, Fortunately, I do not treat patients as I am retired. Most of my career was outside of direct patient care though I do, to this day, carry professional liability insurance myself - not at the same cost as medical malpractice insurance, but still quite expensive (more than my health care insurance). js > > Because in the USA, someone other than the patient usually pays, and > > patient is almost entirely isolated from the cost issue, as is the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > specialist, and seven weeks of physical therapy even though it was fine > in five weeks. I have sprained my ankles a countless number of times. I am an MD and knowledgable with sports medicine. In the last 11 months I had two sprains. The first I put an ice pack on, laid off the hardwood for a bit, and all was fine. The second hurt so damn bad and was so swollen and had such limited range of motion I thought there was at least a 70% chance I fractured it. So I went through that lovely ER/ortho tract that you describe above. XRays were negative but based on the extreme pain and swelling, I went for a second series with different views per the ortho doc. In the end it was just a sprain and simply needs time (a lot of time unfortunately). I was a"treated" appropriately both times even though once was a free self fix and the other was a costly hospital visit. >> With single payer, you've always had the coverage, so how can there be a > pre-existing >> condition? > > Will all coverage be equal? Will there be levels of coverage? Will there > be coinsurance? One of the barriers to universal health care is the leveling of coverage. For the uninsured and underinsured, that's great news, but for union members, government employees, and employees of generous companies it will be a huge loss. All proposals to date have permitted coinsurance, primarily to satisfy the groups that now have Cadillac plans: their employers could offer group "gap" coinsurance. The result is a two-tiered system, those with basic benefits and those with enhanced benefits, but more equitable that the current system. > >> With single payer, you've always had the coverage, so how can there be a > pre-existing [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > All proposals to date have permitted coinsurance, Which proposals are those? Kerry's? Kucinich? > primarily to satisfy > the groups that now have Cadillac plans: their employers could offer > group "gap" coinsurance. The result is a two-tiered system, those with > basic benefits and those with enhanced benefits, but more equitable that > the current system. Hardly more equitable. Reminiscent of Orwell's Animal Farm - all animals are equal, some are just more equal than otehrs. Want to know what they call private supplemental insurance in the UK? Queue jumping insurance. The only reasonable proposal is the PPI version - allowing (mandating) access to private insurance for anyone and everyone. Using tax credits and incentives, not income redistribution. Making individuals responsible, in partnership with their employers, to get affordable coverage that meets THEIR needs. js > > >> With single payer, you've always had the coverage, so how can there be a > > pre-existing [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Hardly more equitable. Reminiscent of Orwell's Animal Farm - all > animals are equal, some are just more equal than otehrs. The current system of making medical access a privilege is just that: many patients are more equal than others. | > >> With single payer, you've always had the coverage, so how can there be a | > pre-existing [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] | responsible, in partnership with their employers, to get affordable | coverage that meets THEIR needs. IF such a system as you propose were to be put into effect, it would certainly be infinitely better than the current socialist model and it wouldn't be "single payer" any longer.....:) Total privatization and a competitive free market would accomplish all you propose and more at lower costs - and would deliver a higher quality of care for everyone..... PC | js One of the problems of the health care system is that it is not even vaguely a free market. Most health care providers will not provide prices for comparison shopping, and, if they do say anything, it is usually false. They are also not consistent. I helped my wife do research a few years ago for an article about the difficulties of health care shopping. It was on one simple test, most hospitals flatly refused to quote a cost "it's covered by your insurance" "come in, have the test, and THEN we will discuss payment". Two hospitals just flatly lied "we can't quote because we don't know how much dye the test will use for each individual " (NONE, the test doesn't use dye). The remainder quoted prices ranging from $200 to $1,800, of course, for insurance companies, it would be about $120 from all of them !!! When the article ran, she got indignant letters from hospitals, but fan mail from doctors. They hadn't had a CLUE that prices varied from place to place. I am also battling a hospital at the moment, I need a regular blood test to adjust dosage of some meds. The hospital quoted me $37/visit, - fair enough price, even if insurance companies would only pay $25. BUT, they BILLED amounts ranging from $42.20 to $53.45, when asked why, I get a different answer every time I call (on the SAME bill) and they are annoyed that I won't pay them until they get the bill straightened. And tell me to call the doctor - there IS no doctor!. When I ask the pharmacologist at the lab, SHE says "that isn't right, you should call billing" > | mike gray <scrubadub@att.net> wrote in message > news:<3WHsc.26553$fF3.682402@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > | js Signature"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present" Glen Cook > One of the problems of the health care system is that it is not even > vaguely a free market. Most health care providers will not provide > prices for comparison shopping, and, if they do say anything, it is > usually false. They are also not consistent. When I have asked about prices, here are the two most common answers: 1. What's the matter? Don't you have insurance? 2. Ask the nurse. (She does not know or won't say either). > I helped my wife do research a few years ago for an article about the > difficulties of health care shopping. It was on one simple test, most > hospitals flatly refused to quote a cost "it's covered by your > insurance" "come in, have the test, and THEN we will discuss payment". Correct. They do that. No one will talk price, and we customers are not even supposed to know DRGs exist. > Two hospitals just flatly lied "we can't quote because we don't know how > much dye the test will use for each individual " (NONE, the test doesn't > use dye). The remainder quoted prices ranging from $200 to $1,800, of > course, for insurance companies, it would be about $120 from all of them !!! Cash customers pay list price. No one else does. > When the article ran, she got indignant letters from hospitals, but fan > mail from doctors. They hadn't had a CLUE that prices varied from place > to place. You hear of elderly people losing their homes because of bills for drugs, for example. No one over 50 is going to escape being heavily medicated anymore. > I am also battling a hospital at the moment, I need a regular blood test > to adjust dosage of some meds. The hospital quoted me $37/visit, - fair [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pharmacologist at the lab, SHE says "that isn't right, you should call > billing" I asked a doctor once what something would cost. His answer was that I was responsible for the entire amount, but insurance paid what it felt like. However, another physician I see from time to time is cost-wise. He accepts payment from BCBS and does not make you pay in advance. I commented to the nurse how nice that was and she commented it is unsual too. The $100 office visit was paid for at $60 by BCBS. > Cash customers pay list price. No one else does. And "list price" is inflated whenever [1] the doctor wants to make up for the lower fees the insurance plans say he has to accept to be allowed to treat their patients. [1] whenever, meaning "almost always" > You hear of elderly people losing their homes because of bills for drugs, > for example. No one over 50 is going to escape being heavily medicated > anymore. I made it! Two pills a day and one of them is probably unnecessary. > I asked a doctor once what something would cost. His answer was that I > was responsible for the entire amount, but insurance paid what it felt like. SignatureWes Groleau ----------- I've been framed! ... http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html >> One of the problems of the health care system is that it is not even >> vaguely a free market. Most health care providers will not provide >> prices for comparison shopping, and, if they do say anything, it is >> usually false. They are also not consistent. > When I have asked about prices, here are the two most common answers: >1. What's the matter? Don't you have insurance? This is an excellent reason why it is important to get RID of insurance for all except major or unexpected items, and to have the prices for ALL up front. With the pseudo-insurance, you have already paid most, and it is only the marginal cost which you can now use to decide whether or not to incur the expense of the procedure. So we run into the tragedy of the commons. >2. Ask the nurse. (She does not know or won't say either). Of course she does not know. She does not handle the money, nor is she paid for the explicit job. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > One of the problems of the health care system is that it is not even > vaguely a free market. Most health care providers will not provide > prices for comparison shopping, and, if they do say anything, it is > usually false. They are also not consistent. Not really. The price lists that hospitals and doctors have (are required to have) are as meaningless as the MSRP pasted on the windows of cars (required to be pasted on the window). Different folks pay different prices. If ya walk in the door and offer to pay list price, they will love ya to death. But very few do. If ya ask what you can actually get it for, they will be a little evasive. Cash? Credit? Buy now or later? Just kicking the tires or are ya really gonna buy that surgery? Doing an expose on how some folks get a better deal than others? I'm currently shopping for cataract surgery. Locally, MSRP (out the door, tax, title, all the options) is about $3800/eye. I have the best shop in town down to about $2600 and they have indicated that they might go lower. Cataract business is slow down here in the summertime, so you can get a better deal than in the winter, so, "Buy now" they tell me, "because that offer won't last for long". Or I can fly to the midwest in midwinter and get a really great price. Free enterprise at work. Love it. Now if I could only get someone else to pay for it. . . . > One of the problems of the health care system is that it is not even > vaguely a free market. Much depends on how you define the market - if you believe it to be patients then you are probably right - if you believe it to be providers and payers, it has a lot of the attributes of an open market. > Most health care providers will not provide > prices for comparison shopping, and, if they do say anything, it is > usually false. They are also not consistent. Not when they are negotiating fees with payers. > I helped my wife do research a few years ago for an article about the > difficulties of health care shopping. It was on one simple test, most [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > use dye). The remainder quoted prices ranging from $200 to $1,800, of > course, for insurance companies, it would be about $120 from all of them !!! The overwhelming majority of purchases for inpatient services are made by payers, not patients. The transparency in prices is at that level. > When the article ran, she got indignant letters from hospitals, but fan > mail from doctors. They hadn't had a CLUE that prices varied from place > to place. Not place to place - within place and between customer segments. > I am also battling a hospital at the moment, I need a regular blood test > to adjust dosage of some meds. The hospital quoted me $37/visit, - fair [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pharmacologist at the lab, SHE says "that isn't right, you should call > billing" Who ordered the test? Did you get the quote in writing? Send them a check for $37 and tell them to sue you for the rest. You have every right to negotiate a price with any provider for any service. js > Who ordered the test? Did you get the quote in writing? Send them a > check for $37 and tell them to sue you for the rest. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > js And he provider has the right to tell you to go elsewhere. In the current climate they really don't have to negotiate. SignatureGeorge Eberhardt (732)224-8988 >> You have every right to negotiate a price with any provider for any >> service. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And he provider has the right to tell you to go elsewhere. In the current > climate they really don't have to negotiate. But they do. All of them. Fact is that a cash pay, even at the same price charged Medicare, is profitable because there's no wait for payment and there's very little billing/collection cost. Just asking for a deal will get you 15% authorized by a billing clerk. Bargain hard and you'll get a lot more. It's just like buying a car. We have seem all kind of response and ideas here. I live in the real world and no rationalization will change the fact that a lot of people in the US do not get decent medical care. Those in a good position with a plush plan and tenure may never have faced poor medical care. In fact they usually use doctors excessively. All that other trash are useless and do not deserve anything. "After all we are the cream of out society". Anyone, anywhere can find an argument the favors their situation. Certain parts of the discussion are true but very biased. I did OK for a lot of years and got very smug. You know things can change. In my case it did. I am now more compassionate and have many fewer answers I doubt if Solomon could solve the mess that we have let develop. I was too smug because I was ignorant about a lot of life and had all of the answers.. >We have seem all kind of response and ideas here. >I live in the real world and no rationalization will change >the fact that a lot of people in the US do not get >decent medical care. >Those in a good position with a plush plan and >tenure may never have faced poor medical care. >In fact they usually use doctors excessively. Some do, and some do not. Those who are active are unwilling to invest the time to unnecessarily see a doctor, and often do not because of this, even waiting too long. Making the marginal cost of medical care low would greatly increase the present overuse. This is already a problem. In my previous position, there was no employer provided plan, and I had only major medical. When I came here, it would have certainly been unsound economically for me not to use what was provided. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 .................... >Two hospitals just flatly lied "we can't quote because we don't know how >much dye the test will use for each individual " (NONE, the test doesn't >use dye). The remainder quoted prices ranging from $200 to $1,800, of >course, for insurance companies, it would be about $120 from all of them !!! In a libertarian society, the consequences for making false statements are considerable for the person making them, NOT the corporation. If higher-ups order it, they are responsible. No passing the buck to the company. Also, to prevent some of the abuses you state, it should be illegal at any time to ask about the kind, if any, of insurance coverage. Provide the tax advantages now had by insurance plans by MSAs, and make people responsible. The one who pays his own bills should not be penalized. >When the article ran, she got indignant letters from hospitals, but fan >mail from doctors. They hadn't had a CLUE that prices varied from place >to place. >I am also battling a hospital at the moment, I need a regular blood test >to adjust dosage of some meds. The hospital quoted me $37/visit, - fair [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >pharmacologist at the lab, SHE says "that isn't right, you should call >billing" See my earlier statements. We need individual responsibility, and real competition. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > .................... > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > by insurance plans by MSAs, and make people responsible. > The one who pays his own bills should not be penalized. When a powerful organization sets up the rules, it takes a second power organization to bargain for you. In the medical/industrial world, you have to have an insurance company bargain for you. You cannot, as an individual, go up against the established order and not expect to get screwed. > Total privatization and a competitive free market would accomplish all you > propose and more at lower costs - and would deliver a higher quality of care > for everyone..... Perhaps. But I can't imagine a health system offering access to all without substantial gov't involvement. Indeed, the present system of Medicare uses the private sector to administer benefits and provide services. | > Total privatization and a competitive free market would accomplish all you | > propose and more at lower costs - and would deliver a higher quality of care [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | Medicare uses the private sector to administer benefits and provide | services. I would refer you to Chile, where their "social security" system was TOTALLY privatized resulting in folks receive four to five times the benefits previously paid out by a government system much like outs. The analogy to medical care is obvious.... There is NOTHING that the private sector cannot do better and cheaper than government - except provide for the common defense and I'm beginning to wonder about that, too!....:) PC > | > Total privatization and a competitive free market would accomplish all > you [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > PC They have a similar system in Galveston, Texas. Many rich retirees because of it. SignatureBrooks Gregory These discussion say that private enterprise can do it better. The question is will it do it better. My experience say this will not happen. It is not government vs "free enterprise" but is a use of a system that keeps people in line. Private people are as abusive and dishonest AS Any government employee. Abuse of us by industry is legendary. Today we see the over reaction to some of this which is also a waste. A Dr. Caldicott on C-span while touting her book on the nuclear problems says if we abandoned all of the defense waste we could have the funds to solve most of our problems including medical. All of the money people ignore that money is only a piece of paper. The real issue is physical resources and available people. The real problem is abusive people that want what rightly belongs to others, I was at the base of the melted tower in Yucca Flats within two months of a large shot. To me that is real world. It will be the end product of our greed. The arguments are over the petty spoils which finally will disappear in a flash. You may not know it happened. The neutron burst will boil your brain in microseconds. After an nuclear exchange radiation problems will be around for a long time. Allegedly my health problems are from the exposure to radiation. People in the US have been exposed to gross fallout and that may be a factor in general health. The war lords will never admit that. The C-span item reminded me how trivial the arguments are here People suffer and die in the US due to lack of medical care that we are capable of providing. we do not do it for selfish grabbing for the money. It is that simple. The same greed will cause the instant vaporization of a lot of us and all of the toys and assets. The failures of the human brain will prevent decent medical care and will lead to Mass destruction. Rationalize your way out of this possibility. Guy >> All proposals to date have permitted coinsurance, > > Which proposals are those? Kerry's? Kucinich? Neither Kerry nor Kucinich have made NHS proposals, though Kerry has promised one as soon as he takes office. His main point, that every American will have the same level of care that members of the US Senate have. Obviously, that is impossible, but he can blame its failure on someone else. There have been legitimate proposals, most recently by Hillary. Coinsurance has always been included to retain the support of those that would lose benefits in a NHS. > Hardly more equitable. Reminiscent of Orwell's Animal Farm - all > animals are equal, some are just more equal than otehrs. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > responsible, in partnership with their employers, to get affordable > coverage that meets THEIR needs. Philosophically satisfying, but out of touch with reality. The problem in the US is that coverage has been split between gov't for the seniors and corporate for the employed, and it's difficult to change horses in midstream. Remember, countries which instituted universal systems did so at the same time that the US opted for the employer-based system. The mechanics of a tax credit system (in which there is, of course, a redistribution of income) are very unwieldy, major problems being the purchase of something now to be paid for with a rebate from the US Treasury next year, the pricing problem for young healthy groups (workers) vs high service groups (diabetics, elderly), and the perception of the elderly that they have already paid for the benefits they now receive. Mandating access is easy. Execution is a bitch. And the feds remain smack dab in the middle anyway. > >> All proposals to date have permitted coinsurance, > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have. Obviously, that is impossible, but he can blame its failure on > someone else. Impossible? You mean that already most of us have inferior care? I am surprised you admit it. >> Neither Kerry nor Kucinich have made NHS proposals, though Kerry has >> promised one as soon as he takes office. His main point, that every [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Impossible? You mean that already most of us have inferior care? I am > surprised you admit it. Why would I not "admit" it? Haven't I said it a dozen times in this thread? Am I not making myself clear, or do you have beans in yer ears? >> >> All proposals to date have permitted coinsurance, >> > Which proposals are those? Kerry's? Kucinich? >> Neither Kerry nor Kucinich have made NHS proposals, though Kerry has >> promised one as soon as he takes office. His main point, that every >> American will have the same level of care that members of the US Senate >> have. Obviously, that is impossible, but he can blame its failure on >> someone else. > Impossible? You mean that already most of us have inferior care? I am >surprised you admit it. You have inferior housing to Bill Gates, etc. You have inferior parking to Congressmen; so what? Anyone who assumes that everyone can get fully adequate health care is ignorant or stupid. Congressional health services at Bethesda may even be better than Mayo Clinic. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > >> >> All proposals to date have permitted coinsurance, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > is ignorant or stupid. Congressional health services at Bethesda > may even be better than Mayo Clinic. Herman ignores the fact that overdiagnosis is a major health concern in the USA. ...................... >> > Impossible? You mean that already most of us have inferior care? I >am >> >surprised you admit it. >> You have inferior housing to Bill Gates, etc. You have inferior >> parking to Congressmen; so what? >> Anyone who assumes that everyone can get fully adequate health care >> is ignorant or stupid. Congressional health services at Bethesda >> may even be better than Mayo Clinic. > Herman ignores the fact that overdiagnosis is a major health concern in >the USA. Overtreatment, yes, but there is also undertreatment. "Unnecessary" tests, but there can be a point to testing with a low probability of finding anything out, because of the higher consequences of what might be found, and to avoid futile treatments. I do not think we test enough, and I have turned down an MRI because I did not think it would be of use in that particular case. If you KNOW something is the case, it is not necessary to test. But overdiagnosis? I have been to a meeting in which a physician presented the problems in using good statistical methods to help diagnose the 500 or so known internal medicine diseases, and he reported that autopsies have shown that half are missed. I believe the average number found was more than five. Do not confuse overdiagnosis with overtreatment. Many conditions are treated simply and cheaply, or even are sufficiently mild as to be ignored. Others are not susceptible to such treatment, and it must be considered that the treatment may be worse than the disease. Do not oversimplify. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > >> All proposals to date have permitted coinsurance, > > > > Which proposals are those? Kerry's? Kucinich? > > Neither Kerry He did as a Senator though currently he has elected to go the universal coverage private insurance pay for it with taxes on the rich route. > nor Kucinich have made NHS proposals, Kucinich? You bet he does, every chance he gets. "My plan is called Enhanced Medicare for All -- a universal, single-payer system of national health insurance,..." http://www.kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php > though Kerry has > promised one as soon as he takes office. His main point, that every > American will have the same level of care that members of the US Senate > have. Obviously, that is impossible, but he can blame its failure on > someone else. If the other good senator from Massachusettes (you know, the one challenged by driving) is willing to take a cut in his access to care.... > There have been legitimate proposals, most recently by Hillary. Hardly legitimate and hardly recent (10 years ago and designed by lawyers) > Coinsurance has always been included to retain the support of those that > would lose benefits in a NHS. Which makes it a bit different in that it is no longer a single payer system but rather a government safety net with private top ups. > > Hardly more equitable. Reminiscent of Orwell's Animal Farm - all > > animals are equal, some are just more equal than otehrs. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Philosophically satisfying, but out of touch with reality. Why? It's working for 163 million working class folks and an additional 10 million or so seniors under Medicare Plus programs. > The problem > in the US is that coverage has been split between gov't for the seniors > and corporate for the employed, Not true - seniors have access to Medicare Plus Choice (or its more recent derivations) PLUS most already subscribe to private supplemental, and many have private employer retirement health insurance. All the federal employees have this as well - top ups and privated, through FEHB. > and it's difficult to change horses in > midstream. Hardly. It only impacts on a small number of folks. > Remember, countries which instituted universal systems did so > at the same time that the US opted for the employer-based system. Do NOT confuse single payer with universal systems and do NOT confuse employer-based with public based. Your dichotomies are not accurate. Germany, as an example, is a universal coverage (by law) with a mixture of true private, quasi-private, and public funded. > The mechanics of a tax credit system (in which there is, of course, a > redistribution of income) are very unwieldy, And only the IRS is to blame for that. > major problems being the > purchase of something now to be paid for with a rebate from the US > Treasury next year, So how does the earned income tax credit work or the childcare tax credit, or.... > the pricing problem for young healthy groups > (workers) This isn't a problem now, is it? > vs high service groups (diabetics, elderly), And what is the problem? > and the > perception of the elderly that they have already paid for the benefits > they now receive. The benefits they now receive are basically inpatient catastrophic coverage. The rest they pay for every month in part B premiums and cost sharing. Medicare is hardly a significant entitlement UNTIL you get really sick. > Mandating access is easy. Execution is a bitch. And the feds remain > smack dab in the middle anyway. No - take the feds out of the money loop. What is it about extending the market for private health insurance to the remaining 100 million US residents from the 180 or so already in it? js > Not true - seniors have access to Medicare Plus Choice (or its more > recent derivations) PLUS most already subscribe to private > supplemental, and many have private employer retirement health > insurance. All the federal employees have this as well - top ups and > privated, through FEHB. And in SoFla the most popular participant sport is going to the doctor's office and bitching about Medicare. (snip some good points) I don't disagree that a privatized system would be ideal. But I think you grossly underestimate both the problems of getting national acceptance and of eliminating the gov't from rules, regulation, and pricing. > > Not true - seniors have access to Medicare Plus Choice (or its more > > recent derivations) PLUS most already subscribe to private [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you grossly underestimate both the problems of getting national > acceptance and of eliminating the gov't from rules, regulation, and pricing. All that needs to happen is that when you turn 65 you don't role into Medicare - you just stay with the program in which you are currently enrolled. js >>> All proposals to date have permitted coinsurance, >> Which proposals are those? Kerry's? Kucinich? >Neither Kerry nor Kucinich have made NHS proposals, though Kerry has >promised one as soon as he takes office. His main point, that every >American will have the same level of care that members of the US Senate >have. Obviously, that is impossible, but he can blame its failure on >someone else. But we should require that any member of Congress who votes for the proposal should not be able to get better care than the "universal" health care at any price. Then see how well the bill fares. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > But we should require that any member of Congress who votes > for the proposal should not be able to get better care than > the "universal" health care at any price. Then see how > well the bill fares. I like that! > > But we should require that any member of Congress who votes > > for the proposal should not be able to get better care than > > the "universal" health care at any price. Then see how > > well the bill fares. > > I like that! We know how it has fared: Congress votes health care for itself but is happy that 43 million people don't have it. It makes them feel superior. > >>> All proposals to date have permitted coinsurance, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the "universal" health care at any price. Then see how > well the bill fares. National health care is always defeated in the USA because those voting on it do not face the consequences of third-world health care half of America now gets. > > > Pre-existing illnesses are > > > being used to deny coverage. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jon Do you need single payer to have that? Under current group plan regulations and continuing coverage provisions, its already a done deal. There is no such thing as a pre-existing condition. js > > > > Pre-existing illnesses are > > > > being used to deny coverage. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > regulations and continuing coverage provisions, its already a done > deal. There is no such thing as a pre-existing condition. Well, now you start entering the realm of semantics. I think for practical conversations we can define a pre-existing condition as one that a person has and knows about prior taking on a particular insurance plan. >> > Pre-existing illnesses are >> > being used to deny coverage. >> >> Yes. Will a singler payer change that? That's against Federal law, btw. >With single payer, you've always had the coverage, so how can there be a pre-existing >condition? Exaclty. Lee Iacocca said in the late 1980's that he could build an American car 500$ cheaper in Canada, due to lower health care costs alone. Let's keep the jobs here and make the hMO's outsource for unding. > Lee Iacocca said in the late 1980's that he could build an American > car 500$ cheaper in Canada, due to lower health care costs alone. Too bad that with their much higher taxes, Canadians don't have enough money left over to buy the cars they make. >I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to >add/neutralize some of the extremist portions of your argument - which >inevitably are the downfall of such opinions as they polarize conversations >to either being pro or anti - whatever, which is often quite >counterproductive. >Again, my opinions come from an MD who sees and appreciates the highlights >of BOTH sides of this issue, so be careful of attacking people in the >middle... since people like me are (or should be) your target audience... ........................ >> Non-profit national health insurance will actually decrease total health >> care spending while providing more treatment and services >An interesting concept that has been proposed here and elsewhere a number of >times. As I have suggested before, allow those who believe in this form a VOLUNTARY national organization to do this. If there are any legislative difficulties in this, I will support them in removing those difficulties. They can make the rules for joining and leaving, and how it will operate. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > >I don't disagree with much of your overall point, but let me try to > >add/neutralize some of the extremist portions of your argument - which [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > in removing those difficulties. They can make the rules for > joining and leaving, and how it will operate. Well Herman we used to have such voluntary groups, but as you know they are now outlawed in every state. > Download and print these trifold brochures to help promote single payer > Universial Health Care http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/otherpdfs/HealthCareBrochurePetition.pdf http://www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/otherpdfs/HealthCareBroch_NoPetition.pdf > Learn More: > http://www.kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > (more than $1 trillion) and a phased-in tax on employers of 7.7% (almost $1 > trillion). Then, unless you are going to charge it all to just one employer, it isn't really "Single Payor" now, is it? SignatureFor 35 years I made a very good living in politics. I'll probably spend the rest of my life praying for forgivness for participating in such a sleazy profession. Brooks Gregory > How would we pay for it? > Funding will come primarily from existing government health care spending [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > federal dollars for health care. The American people are already paying for > universal health care; they're just not getting it. > It is sound economics -- what actuaries call "Spreading the Risk" -- to > extend Medicare to younger and healthier sectors of our population, thereby > putting everyone in one insurance pool. It permanently saves and improves > Medicare, while eliminating duplicative private and government > bureaucracies. It is cost shifting - plain and simple. It eliminates any possibility for individuals to select the type of health coverage they want and the services they want to access. > > Such a system will be publicly financed Funded by progressive taxes? > and privately delivered, allowing > people to choose their own health care providers. Sure - choose all you want - rom that group willing to play. And how exactly is the government going to control expenditures? Administrative savings?. Sure - federal bureaucracies adminisratively efficient? Since when? > The system will provide > preventive health care, dental care, mental health care, and affordable > prescription drugs. This system will make health care available to everyone, > regardless of pre-existing conditions, status of employment, or income > level. It will need to tax the sh.t out of hard working America to pay for crap they neither want or need and limit access to the things they really want and need. All so the 42 million uninsured can get insurance? Wouldn't it be a lot easier just to subsidize poor peoples insurance premiums rather than drag all of us into a system that has not worked well in any country? > I urge Democrats to make this resolution a plank in the 2004 party platform. And I urge anyone with a modicum of sense not to elect an administration hell bent on cratering the a system of health care that works just fine for everyone - other than the ones relying on the government, that is. Save Medicare by making young people share the cost? isn't it enough already that we pay 1.45% of every dollar we earn into a program that we will never use? Great stuff this Medicare. js > It will need to tax the sh.t out of hard working America to pay for > crap they neither want or need and limit access to the things they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > than drag all of us into a system that has not worked well in any > country? Just happened upon this thread. FYI we are ALREADY paying for those who have no insurance. That is why medical expenses are so over inflated now. Poor and non-paying, non-insured people get medical care just like those who have insurance. Our insurance premiums are higher than they should be, and our medical expenses are higher than they should be.... it is necessary in order to pay for those who don't have insurance. Better it should be upfront and honest and available to everybody. SignatureRegards, Evelyn (to reply to me personally, remove 'sox") | > It will need to tax the sh.t out of hard working America to pay for | > crap they neither want or need and limit access to the things they [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] | | Better it should be upfront and honest and available to everybody. You've nailed it! Dead bang right! PC > | > It will need to tax the sh.t out of hard working America to pay for > | > crap they neither want or need and limit access to the things they [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > You've nailed it! Dead bang right! You sure? Have you seen cost estimates of taking care of the uninsured in ER type settings or other "emergencies" vs. costs of providing care for these people? Though I don't have any data, I strongly doubt it will cost less to provide total, upfront care for all than it does now on emergency bases. However, you have a very valid point that we are already paying for the uninsured. This is a great reason for the immediate institution of mandatory health insurance. | > | > It will need to tax the sh.t out of hard working America to pay for | > | > crap they neither want or need and limit access to the things they [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] | the uninsured. This is a great reason for the immediate institution of | mandatory health insurance. It's a great reason for the immediate cessation of providing "free medical" to illegal aliens for openers and also for letting legitimate charities - privately financed - handle the indigent. We need to focus on the difference between the two types of indigents, the unwilling and the unable. A compassionate society has always taken care of the unable, that's what charity....private charity....is about. The unwilling deserve nothing from anyone. Government has no place in either venue and forced taxation is wrong no matter how "noble" the cause.....! PC > | > | > It will need to tax the sh.t out of hard working America to pay for > | > | > crap they neither want or need and limit access to the things they [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > to illegal aliens for openers and also for letting legitimate charities - > privately financed - handle the indigent. I disagree. I think that any human being who needs emergency medical care should be and needs to be cared for. Currently, however, these folks get their care and leave the hospital. That needs to change. What needs to happen to illegals is they need to get their care and be transferred directly to the care of Immigration Services. > We need to focus on the difference between the two types of indigents, the > unwilling and the unable. A compassionate society has always taken care of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > PC || > It's a great reason for the immediate cessation of providing "free | medical" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | happen to illegals is they need to get their care and be transferred | directly to the care of Immigration Services. I should have stated the exception as you did - I agree that anyone in need of CRITICAL care - and ONLY critical care - should be stabilized and then, if an illegal alien, promptly deported. Furthermore, ANY social service provided to ANY illegal alien from ANY country should be charged back to the country of origin by having that cost deducted off the top of the country of origin's foreign aid payments..... PC > || > It's a great reason for the immediate cessation of providing "free > | medical" [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > PC Now THAT sounds like a good idea. SignatureRegards, Evelyn (to reply to me personally, remove 'sox") > "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message >>Furthermore, ANY social service provided to ANY illegal alien from ANY [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Now THAT sounds like a good idea. Though I'm inclined to agree, I remember a quote: "For every complex problem, there is a simple, easy-to-understand wrong answer." (But I don't remember the source) Anyone think it may be time to cut down a little on the cross-posts? SignatureWes Groleau ----------- "Thinking I'm dumb gives people something to feel smug about. Why should I disillusion them?" -- Charles Wallace (in _A_Wrinkle_In_Time_) | > "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message | >>Furthermore, ANY social service provided to ANY illegal alien from ANY [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | "For every complex problem, there is a simple, | easy-to-understand wrong answer." What's "wrong" with the simple answer? Don't you think the country of origin should pay for their own citizens???? PC > | > | > It will need to tax the sh.t out of hard working America to pay for > | > | > crap they neither want or need and limit access to the things they [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > PC I guess you are one of those people who has a different definition of "a civilized society" than I do. SignatureRegards, Evelyn (to reply to me personally, remove 'sox") > > | > | > It will need to tax the sh.t out of hard working America to pay > for [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > > > PC > I guess you are one of those people who has a different definition of "a > civilized society" than I do. He is one of *many* who are very upset over the illegal alien problem right now. Please spare me any comparisons to the days of old, when our country was founded on such things. It was also founded on slavery, but times do change. The days of a free and open border are over. I saw a tidbit on TV tonight (which makes me want to watch even less TV) where kids (young, middle school kids) are being suspended from school because of the color bracelets they wear and their possible "hidden" or "secret" meaning of sexual acts these kids are supposedly willing to perform based on those colors. But we should take those who violate our country by sneaking in, past our security, and then live in our country without ever paying taxes? I pay for those people. I pay for their water to be clean. I pay for their security. I pay for their fire department to douse their burning houses. I pay the police to protect them. I pay for the emergency appendectomy or their stab wounds with a three month hospital stay requiring 5 separate abdominal operations. These are drains on society - and not small ones. It's not an issue of civilization but one of practicality. | > > It's a great reason for the immediate cessation of providing "free | > medical" [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] | abdominal operations. These are drains on society - and not small ones. | It's not an issue of civilization but one of practicality. It's also an issue of fairness and justice! Try to get anything "free" from the government in any other country on earth! The rest of the world marvels at our naivete and stupidity......:( PC | > We need to focus on the difference between the two types of indigents, the | > unwilling and the unable. A compassionate society has always taken care of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | I guess you are one of those people who has a different definition of "a | civilized society" than I do. What you've described isn't "civilized" but rather socialist....big difference. In a civilized society, the unable are cared for, but NOT by government. Please explain why the unwilling should be cared for?? When government steps in, socialism is at the door and everyone suffers.... I'll stick with my version of "civilized". You may continue to champion yours, if you are so inclined.....:) PC >| > We need to focus on the difference between the two types of indigents, >the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >PC At one time that was the system. The hospitals were run be orders and the help were from religious orders. If I remember it was a different world. If a man was know to cheat people he was black listed. A contract could be sealed by a hand shake. Those people of honor are now known as fools. Try leaving your door unlocked today. We used to have about three to five law enforcement in a county. Socialism comes as a response to greed. I suspect we will cycle and finally socialism will become the way. An old friend who died 20 years ago told me he was the last generation to be free. The thread seems to bear it out. Hell, if they can't pay that is their bad luck. If I can "take" them I should, Let solve the problem with an euthanasia program for those over 50.. The word civilized set me off. Have a good night. > > It will need to tax the sh.t out of hard working America to pay for > > crap they neither want or need and limit access to the things they [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > medical expenses are so over inflated now. Poor and non-paying, > non-insured people get medical care just like those who have insurance. Our costs for medical care in the USA are high because the system gets whatever it wants to give care, no questions asked. So you have a very high list price, discounts from the list price, cost shifting and so forth and so on. In the end, we pay twice as much as the industrialized world average, and it keeps going up up up forever and will never stop as long as those involved think they are able to get away with it. > > > It will need to tax the sh.t out of hard working America to pay for > > > crap they neither want or need and limit access to the things they [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and it keeps going up up up forever and will never stop as long as those > involved think they are able to get away with it. All absolutely true. SignatureRegards, Evelyn (to reply to me personally, remove 'sox") > > It will need to tax the sh.t out of hard working America to pay for > > crap they neither want or need and limit access to the things they [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > FYI we are ALREADY paying for those who have no insurance. We are NOT paying for their insurance - we are paying for their health care. The argument on one side (the SPUC side) goes that these folk don't get any health care. The argument on the other side (the private sector insurance promoters) is that they get health care and are typically free riders. My prefernce is that there are no free riders and that reasonable accdess to services is made possible for everyone - without the Feds owning the system. > That is why > medical expenses are so over inflated now. Poor and non-paying, > non-insured people get medical care just like those who have insurance. Maybe not quite the same but certainly it is more than no care as the SPUCers want you to believe. > Our insurance premiums are higher than they should be, and our medical > expenses are higher than they should be.... it is necessary in order to pay > for those who don't have insurance. Insurance premiums include the cost of uncompensated care. Whether or not premiums are higher than they "should" be is a completely different question. > Better it should be upfront and honest and available to everybody. Insurance - yes. js > > > It will need to tax the sh.t out of hard working America to pay for > > > crap they neither want or need and limit access to the things they [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > js The profit motive works well in our society for everything but in the area of health care. I don't think insurance companies have your good health as their motive, they have getting your money as their motive, and paying out as little of it as they can get away with. Doctors ditto. Doctors claim their malpractice insurance costs are astronomical, and they probably are. They should clean up their own house first and crack down on inadequate doctors whose screwups cause high payouts, and then their insurance premiums would be lower. Try suggesting THAT to your doctor. There is no organization that practices CYA so strongly as the AMA. Doctors make too much money, insurance companies make too much money too. The system is broke and we end users are the casualties. Too bad. WE pay for the uninsured and the indigent ANYWAY, but nobody wants to admit it. Make a single payer universal health care system and all the prices will go down. SignatureRegards, Evelyn (to reply to me personally, remove 'sox") In alt.cancer.support Evelyn Ruut <mama-lionsox@hvc.rr.com> wrote: > Make a single payer universal health care system and all the prices > will go down. There is NO free lunch. Name a 'single payer' system that doesn't have shortages and long delays for complex treatments such as surgery, etc. > In alt.cancer.support Evelyn Ruut <mama-lionsox@hvc.rr.com> wrote: > > Make a single payer universal health care system and all the prices > > will go down. > > There is NO free lunch. Name a 'single payer' system that doesn't have > shortages and long delays for complex treatments such as surgery, etc. I'd even be impressed if she could name one where there isn't a waiting list for simple things like diagnostic xrays and specialist referrals. js Jonathan Smith <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote on 24 May 2004 19:24:20 -0700: >> In alt.cancer.support Evelyn Ruut <mama-lionsox@hvc.rr.com> wrote: >> > Make a single payer universal health care system and all the prices >> > will go down. >> There is NO free lunch. Name a 'single payer' system that doesn't >> have shortages and long delays for complex treatments such as surgery, >> etc. > I'd even be impressed if she could name one where there isn't a waiting > list for simple things like diagnostic xrays and specialist referrals. Funny, that. Last Monday (8 days ago), I fell off my bike and landed heavily on my ribs. Last Tuesday, on waking up, the pain was still significantly above what wasn't worrying, so I visited my Doc. He said, better get those ribs (and left-hand middle finger) X-rayed. I was back in that Doc's surgery little more than an hour later, carrying an enveloppe with the requisite X-rays. Luckily, nothing was broken. I'm not sure what you people mean exactly by a "single payer" system. Here in Germany, health insurance through the "Krankenkassen" is compulsory for people earning less that a fairly high threshold (around 4,000 Euros/month). The premium paid depends only on one's income, and is around 14% of salary (with a maximum corresponding to that ~4,000 Euro threshold), half of it being paid by the employer. The unemployed and poor are not excluded. This system works very well, despite the recognised inefficiencies and, to some extent, corruption. High earners may stay in the normal Krankenkassen insurance scheme, or they may opt for private insurance, or even decide to pay for treatment as they need it. Having opted out of the Krankenkassen, they may not later rejoin them, since the Krankenkassen operate on the basis of people "overpaying" when young and healthy and "being subsidised" later in life when no longer so healthy. The system has recently been "reformed" (worsened, I would say) in that patients now have to pay a 10 Euro charge per quarter on visiting a doc., and have to pay fairly hefty prescription charges (10% of the cost, min. 5 Euros, max 10 Euros, but never more that the retail cost itself). Sadly, the government didn't have the resolve to tackle the inefficiencies and corruption in the various medical and insurance systems. Maybe that will come. I would not swap this system for anything the USA currently offers, and would be very wary of moving there, even were I completely healthy. > js SignatureAlan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany) Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter (like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a"). > Jonathan Smith <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote on 24 May 2004 19:24:20 > -0700: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Here in Germany, Germany is NOT a single payer system. It is a employer mandated insurance system funded by employer contributions through a system of private (quasi-private) insurance carriers (Krankenkasse) and delivered through a primarily private delivery system on a fee for service or local budget (depending on provider type) basis. > health insurance through the "Krankenkassen" is > compulsory for people earning less that a fairly high threshold (around > 4,000 Euros/month). The premium paid depends only on one's income, and > is around 14% of salary (with a maximum corresponding to that ~4,000 Euro > threshold), half of it being paid by the employer. It is an employment tax - on the employer. The 7% metric is one of convenience for accounting. There is an upper limit - the most you will pay is 250 Euro per month. If your earnings are under 1000 Euro or so a month, you get a subsidy. > The unemployed and > poor are not excluded. This system works very well, despite the > recognised inefficiencies and, to some extent, corruption. The system works well BECAUSE it is NOT single payer. In the US, the poor are not excluded. The unemployed are not excluded either - there is COBRA. > High earners may stay in the normal Krankenkassen insurance scheme, or > they may opt for private insurance, or even decide to pay for treatment > as they need it. Having opted out of the Krankenkassen, they may not > later rejoin them, since the Krankenkassen operate on the basis of people > "overpaying" when young and healthy and "being subsidised" later in life > when no longer so healthy. No, that is not exactly true. However, the equilibrator is, once you go private, your annual premium is determined by the age cohort premium for the age at which you entered the system. In other words, as long as there is continuity if coverage there's no change in premium (other than for inflation). > The system has recently been "reformed" (worsened, I would say) in that > patients now have to pay a 10 Euro charge per quarter on visiting a doc., [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > inefficiencies and corruption in the various medical and insurance > systems. Maybe that will come. In Germany you have one of the more functional and equitable systems of health care financing. You also have some of the best quality care and excellent access. You also have the same set of problems that other systems face - you are spending a lot of money for this and the amount you spend keeps going up. > I would not swap this system for anything the USA currently offers, and > would be very wary of moving there, even were I completely healthy. The system you describe IS the system that 163 million Americans have. Private insurance with premiums funded by contributions from employees and their employers with comprehensive cover, nominal cost sharing, and excellent access and outcomes. So - now what. js | > Jonathan Smith <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote on 24 May 2004 19:24:20 | > -0700: [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] | employees and their employers with comprehensive cover, nominal cost | sharing, and excellent access and outcomes. Excellent points, well made - I hope everyone takes it all in.....:) PC > | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote in message > news:<kh9v8c.bb.ln@acm.acm>... [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > PC Our outcomes make us about #38. That is a lot of money for so-so medical outcomes. And don't start in that we have the world's worst patients, and refrain from racist comments too. | > | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote in message | > news:<kh9v8c.bb.ln@acm.acm>... [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] | Our outcomes make us about #38. That is a lot of money for so-so medical | outcomes. Our "outcome", as you put it, puts us way ahead of anyone else - and, to quote someone who said it first, you get what you pay for......until the costs are escalated to pay for things that are merely administrivia and/or that transfer wealth from one group to another..... | And don't start in that we have the world's worst patients, and refrain | from racist comments too. I've made no such comments - is that all you can add to the discussion? Can you comment rationally on what I and others have said and give us the benefit of your "take" on the subject at hand? PC > | > | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote in message > | > news:<kh9v8c.bb.ln@acm.acm>... [quoted text clipped - 128 lines] > > PC I know the Ayn Rand rant. | > | And don't start in that we have the world's worst patients, and | refrain [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | > | I know the Ayn Rand rant. You haven't a clue - and you simply can't support your take on matters at hand. You cannot add anything rational to the discussion.....:) PC > | > | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote in message > news:<kh9v8c.bb.ln@acm.acm>... [quoted text clipped - 128 lines] > > PC PC: Georgy has been around for a while. He has never added anything of value. http://www.nccu.edu/artsci/social/conklin.htm I'm inclined to take Skeptics advice and just ignore him. js | > | Our outcomes make us about #38. That is a lot of money for so-so | > medical [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] | http://www.nccu.edu/artsci/social/conklin.htm | I'm inclined to take Skeptics advice and just ignore him. Yup - that's clear....:) Good advice in re ignoring him - it's much like trying to teach a pig to sing....it frustrates you and pisses off the pig!.....:) PC | js > The system works well BECAUSE it is NOT single payer. In the US, the > poor are not excluded. The unemployed are not excluded either - there > is COBRA. COBRA ?!? Yes, when I was laid off, I was offered the chance to maintain substantially the same coverage for about thirteen hundred dollars a month. What an offer! For a little bit less than the income I _no_longer_have_ I can keep a plan that pays 80% of my medical bills. And I get to keep it for eighteen months. (Meaning that IF I had been able to afford it, it would be ending two months from now.) SignatureWes Groleau Armchair Activism: http://www.breakthechain.org/armchair.html | > The system works well BECAUSE it is NOT single payer. In the US, the | > poor are not excluded. The unemployed are not excluded either - there [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | (Meaning that IF I had been able to afford it, it would be ending | two months from now.) One wonders when/how that could be. I used COBRA between jobs - cost about $125/month....pretty reasonable..... PC > "Wes Groleau" <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in message > | COBRA ?!? Yes, when I was laid off, I was offered the chance [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > One wonders when/how that could be. I used COBRA between jobs - cost about > $125/month....pretty reasonable..... Maybe some idiot threw in an extra zero and didn't proof-read. SignatureWes Groleau A pessimist says the glass is half empty. An optimist says the glass is half full. An engineer says somebody made the glass twice as big as it needed to be. > | > The system works well BECAUSE it is NOT single payer. In the US, the > | > poor are not excluded. The unemployed are not excluded either - there [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > PC The average for an adult in the USA is over $500 a month. For a family, $700. > > The system works well BECAUSE it is NOT single payer. In the US, the > > poor are not excluded. The unemployed are not excluded either - there [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to maintain substantially the same coverage for about thirteen > hundred dollars a month. OK - so in another thread it was $1000, now its $1300. Liar. > What an offer! For a little bit less > than the income I _no_longer_have_ I can keep a plan that pays > 80% of my medical bills. And I get to keep it for eighteen months. > (Meaning that IF I had been able to afford it, it would be ending > two months from now.) If you want to make an argument, use real information - dont do a Denise and make stuff up as you go along. js > OK - so in another thread it was $1000, now its $1300. > > Liar. Mack said his was $1500. I said mine was over $1000. Do you get a kick out of arguing with liars? Or do you just enjoy using the word? SignatureWes Groleau He that is good for making excuses, is seldom good for anything else. -- Benjamin Franklin > > OK - so in another thread it was $1000, now its $1300. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Do you get a kick out of arguing with liars? > Or do you just enjoy using the word? If you post a FAct they don't like, they just call you a liar. It is a substitute for problem solving. It is like Pat Paulson used to say, "We all know that solutions are not the answers to problems." > > OK - so in another thread it was $1000, now its $1300. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Do you get a kick out of arguing with liars? You post it and I'll point it out. > Or do you just enjoy using the word? If the shoe fits. js "Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > COBRA ?!? Yes, when I was laid off, I was offered the chance > > to maintain substantially the same coverage for about thirteen > > hundred dollars a month. My wife's is $359.00 a month with Conneticut and it includes everything. > Liar. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > js > "Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > COBRA ?!? Yes, when I was laid off, I was offered the chance > > > to maintain substantially the same coverage for about thirteen > > > hundred dollars a month. > > My wife's is $359.00 a month with Conneticut and it includes everything. For a family it would be ? The true cost is about $5,000 per person per year in the USA. And that is too low for the boys who want to keep their earnings up. > > > The system works well BECAUSE it is NOT single payer. In the US, the > > > poor are not excluded. The unemployed are not excluded either - there [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > js It does not matter if it $1,000 more or less. The amount per person in the USA is about $5,000 a year. >> > The system works well BECAUSE it is NOT single payer. In the US, the >> > poor are not excluded. The unemployed are not excluded either - there [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Liar. Worse, COBRA doesn't apply small employee groups, I don't remember what the cutoff is, but it is bigger than most small businesses. If you work for GE, you can get COBRA Coverage, if you work for the gas station around the corner, you cannot. > >> > The system works well BECAUSE it is NOT single payer. In the US, the > >> > poor are not excluded. The unemployed are not excluded either - there [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you work for GE, you can get COBRA Coverage, if you work for the gas > station around the corner, you cannot. COBRA does not allow enough time -- 18 months in most cases. Jonathan Smith <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote on 25 May 2004 13:26:16 -0700: >> Jonathan Smith <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote on 24 May 2004 >> 19:24:20 -0700: >> >> In alt.cancer.support Evelyn Ruut <mama-lionsox@hvc.rr.com> wrote: >> >> > Make a single payer universal health care system and all the >> >> > prices will go down. >> >> There is NO free lunch. Name a 'single payer' system that doesn't >> >> have shortages and long delays for complex treatments such as surgery, >> >> etc. >> > I'd even be impressed if she could name one where there isn't a waiting >> > list for simple things like diagnostic xrays and specialist referrals. >> Funny, that. Last Monday (8 days ago), I fell off my bike and landed >> heavily on my ribs. Last Tuesday, on waking up, the pain was still >> significantly above what wasn't worrying, so I visited my Doc. He said, >> better get those ribs (and left-hand middle finger) X-rayed. I was back >> in that Doc's surgery little more than an hour later, carrying an >> enveloppe with the requisite X-rays. Luckily, nothing was broken. >> I'm not sure what you people mean exactly by a "single payer" system. >> Here in Germany, > Germany is NOT a single payer system. What does "single payer system" mean? > It is a employer mandated insurance system funded by employer > contributions through a system of private (quasi-private) insurance > carriers (Krankenkasse) and delivered through a primarily private > delivery system on a fee for service or local budget (depending on > provider type) basis. >> health insurance through the "Krankenkassen" is compulsory for people >> earning less that a fairly high threshold (around 4,000 Euros/month). >> The premium paid depends only on one's income, and is around 14% of >> salary (with a maximum corresponding to that ~4,000 Euro threshold), >> half of it being paid by the employer. > It is an employment tax - on the employer. The 7% metric is one of > convenience for accounting. There is an upper limit - the most you > will pay is 250 Euro per month. If your earnings are under 1000 Euro > or so a month, you get a subsidy. >> The unemployed and poor are not excluded. This system works very >> well, despite the recognised inefficiencies and, to some extent, >> corruption. > The system works well BECAUSE it is NOT single payer. In the US, the > poor are not excluded. The unemployed are not excluded either - there > is COBRA. Who is/would be the "single payer" in the US? >> High earners may stay in the normal Krankenkassen insurance scheme, or >> they may opt for private insurance, or even decide to pay for >> treatment as they need it. Having opted out of the Krankenkassen, >> they may not later rejoin them, since the Krankenkassen operate on the >> basis of people "overpaying" when young and healthy and "being >> subsidised" later in life when no longer so healthy. > No, that is not exactly true. How not? Apart from people opting out, it is entirely true. > However, the equilibrator is, once you go private, your annual premium > is determined by the age cohort premium for the age at which you > entered the system. In other words, as long as there is continuity of > coverage there's no change in premium (other than for inflation). >> The system has recently been "reformed" (worsened, I would say) in >> that patients now have to pay a 10 Euro charge per quarter on visiting [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> inefficiencies and corruption in the various medical and insurance >> systems. Maybe that will come. > In Germany you have one of the more functional and equitable systems > of health care financing. You also have some of the best quality care > and excellent access. You also have the same set of problems that > other systems face - you are spending a lot of money for this and the > amount you spend keeps going up. Very true. >> I would not swap this system for anything the USA currently offers, and >> would be very wary of moving there, even were I completely healthy. > The system you describe IS the system that 163 million Americans have. Is it not the case that leaving a job in the USA typically imperils one's medical insurance? > Private insurance with premiums funded by contributions from > employees and their employers with comprehensive cover, nominal cost > sharing, and excellent access and outcomes. The essence of the system in Germany is that it is comprehensive, encompassing everybody. Also that what one pays is dependent only on one's means, not on one's health. The population of the USA is a good deal higher than 163 million, isn't it? > So - now what. > js SignatureAlan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany) Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter (like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a"). > Jonathan Smith <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote on 25 May 2004 13:26:16 > -0700: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > What does "single payer system" mean? One payer - typically the central government - for all medical services. > > It is a employer mandated insurance system funded by employer > > contributions through a system of private (quasi-private) insurance [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Who is/would be the "single payer" in the US? There is a system of care financing provided to the elderly called Medicare. Tis is the closest model of single payer in the US. > >> High earners may stay in the normal Krankenkassen insurance scheme, or > >> they may opt for private insurance, or even decide to pay for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > How not? Apart from people opting out, it is entirely true. The premiums paid are based on income and age at enrollment. It is not a medical savings account. > > However, the equilibrator is, once you go private, your annual premium > > is determined by the age cohort premium for the age at which you [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Very true. And it isn't a single payer system. > >> I would not swap this system for anything the USA currently offers, and > >> would be very wary of moving there, even were I completely healthy. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is it not the case that leaving a job in the USA typically imperils one's > medical insurance? Not necessarily. In fact, it is quite rare though politically it is a big to do. There is a system of COBRA which provides for health care insurance continuation for 18 months. Most people who switch jobs do so in a much shorter period. As long as you keep up with the premiums you are fully covered. Once you start in your new position, you become eligible for the plan there and there is a smooth transition. > > Private insurance with premiums funded by contributions from > > employees and their employers with comprehensive cover, nominal cost [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > encompassing everybody. Also that what one pays is dependent only on > one's means, not on one's health. The positive part of the German system is not the funding - however, what is good is that the top end earners pay more, but not proportionately more. With a cap of 3500 Euro or so of income liable to the 7% tax, the costs are reasonable. In the absence of the cap, it would be a draconian redistribution of wealth. > The population of the USA is a good > deal higher than 163 million, isn't it? Yes - 40 million are elderly and are covered under Medicare. Another 40 million or so have public sector insurances - VA, DoD, or Medicaid. And the last 40 million have no health care INSURANCE. That makes 283 million Americans. js Jonathan Smith <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote on 26 May 2004 07:07:02 -0700: >> Jonathan Smith <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote on 25 May 2004 >> 13:26:16 -0700: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> >> > Make a single payer universal health care system and all the >> >> >> > prices will go down. >> >> >> There is NO free lunch. Name a 'single payer' system that >> >> >> doesn't have shortages and long delays for complex treatments >> >> >> such as surgery, etc. >> >> > I'd even be impressed if she could name one where there isn't a >> >> > waiting list for simple things like diagnostic xrays and >> >> > specialist referrals. >> >> Funny, that. Last Monday (8 days ago), I fell off my bike and >> >> landed heavily on my ribs. Last Tuesday, on waking up, the pain [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> later, carrying an enveloppe with the requisite X-rays. Luckily, >> >> nothing was broken. >> What does "single payer system" mean? > One payer - typically the central government - for all medical > services. OK. >> > It is a employer mandated insurance system funded by employer >> > contributions through a system of private (quasi-private) insurance >> > carriers (Krankenkasse) and delivered through a primarily private >> > delivery system on a fee for service or local budget (depending on >> > provider type) basis. >> >> health insurance through the "Krankenkassen" is compulsory for >> >> people earning less that a fairly high threshold (around 4,000 >> >> Euros/month). The premium paid depends only on one's income, and >> >> is around 14% of salary (with a maximum corresponding to that >> >> ~4,000 Euro threshold), half of it being paid by the employer. >> > It is an employment tax - on the employer. The 7% metric is one of >> > convenience for accounting. There is an upper limit - the most you >> > will pay is 250 Euro per month. If your earnings are under 1000 >> > Euro or so a month, you get a subsidy. It's a tax on both parties. >> >> The unemployed and poor are not excluded. This system works very >> >> well, despite the recognised inefficiencies and, to some extent, >> >> corruption. >> > The system works well BECAUSE it is NOT single payer. In the US, the >> > poor are not excluded. The unemployed are not excluded either - there >> > is COBRA. >> Who is/would be the "single payer" in the US? > There is a system of care financing provided to the elderly called > Medicare. Tis is the closest model of single payer in the US. What I don't see is why it makes an enormous difference whether there is a single payer, or several parallel payers. Surely the principles governing the collecting of contributions and providing the services is more important than whether there's a single government agency, or 20 funds in parallel (much as in Germany at the moment). >> >> High earners may stay in the normal Krankenkassen insurance scheme, or >> >> they may opt for private insurance, or even decide to pay for >> >> treatment as they need it. Having opted out of the Krankenkassen, >> >> they may not later rejoin them, since the Krankenkassen operate on the >> >> basis of people "overpaying" when young and healthy and "being >> >> subsidised" later in life when no longer so healthy. >> > No, that is not exactly true. >> How not? Apart from people opting out, it is entirely true. > The premiums paid are based on income and age at enrollment. It is > not a medical savings account. No. If we're still talking about Germany, the contributions are dependent only on current income. It's much more like a tax than an insurance. The unemployed paid nothing, (or very close to nothing, I'm not sure). Thus young healthy people typically pay in their 14% (half from employer, half from themselves), yet don't use medical services at all (except, possibly, for their children). 40 years later, they'll be using masses of these services, yet be paying in very little in contributions. It works out, sort of, in the long run. >> > However, the equilibrator is, once you go private, your annual >> > premium is determined by the age cohort premium for the age at which >> > you entered the system. In other words, as long as there is >> > continuity of coverage there's no change in premium (other than for >> > inflation). >> >> The system has recently been "reformed" (worsened, I would say) in >> >> that patients now have to pay a 10 Euro charge per quarter on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> resolve to tackle the inefficiencies and corruption in the various >> >> medical and insurance systems. Maybe that will come. >> > In Germany you have one of the more functional and equitable systems >> > of health care financing. You also have some of the best quality >> > care and excellent access. You also have the same set of problems >> > that other systems face - you are spending a lot of money for this >> > and the amount you spend keeps going up. >> Very true. > And it isn't a single payer system. Again, what difference would it make if it were? The Krankenkassen are very tightly regulated on how they take contributions and what they must pay out. They're much more like government agencies than insurance companies. What difference do you think it would make to Germany if there were only one Krankenkasse? >> >> I would not swap this system for anything the USA currently offers, >> >> and would be very wary of moving there, even were I completely >> >> healthy. >> > The system you describe IS the system that 163 million Americans >> > have. >> Is it not the case that leaving a job in the USA typically imperils >> one's medical insurance? > Not necessarily. In fact, it is quite rare though politically it is a > big to do. There is a system of COBRA which provides for health care > insurance continuation for 18 months. Most people who switch jobs do > so in a much shorter period. As long as you keep up with the premiums > you are fully covered. Once you start in your new position, you become > eligible for the plan there and there is a smooth transition. Hmmm. Only for 18 months? So somebody who loses his job, say because of injury, is up sheet crick after 18 months? How much are COBRA contributions, compared with the money the injured person receives from the public social fund? >> > Private insurance with premiums funded by contributions from >> > employees and their employers with comprehensive cover, nominal >> > cost sharing, and excellent access and outcomes. >> The essence of the system in Germany is that it is comprehensive, >> encompassing everybody. Also that what one pays is dependent only on >> one's means, not on one's health. > The positive part of the German system is not the funding - however, > what is good is that the top end earners pay more, but not > proportionately more. With a cap of 3500 Euro or so of income liable > to the 7% tax, the costs are reasonable. In the absence of the cap, it > would be a draconian redistribution of wealth. Draconian? Or Utopian? ;-) >> The population of the USA is a good deal higher than 163 million, >> isn't it? > Yes - 40 million are elderly and are covered under Medicare. Another > 40 million or so have public sector insurances - VA, DoD, or Medicaid. > And the last 40 million have no health care INSURANCE. That makes > 283 million Americans. OK, thanks! > js SignatureAlan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany) Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter (like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a"). > Jonathan Smith <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote on 26 May 2004 07:07:02 > -0700: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > It's a tax on both parties. It's a payroll tax, in that you are correct. From the level of the employee, it has a cap which makes it a lot less progressive and the cap is such that even at the highest incomes, the cost is reasonable. I define reasonable as a cost not to exceed the actual value of the benefit to the individual. For the corporation, it is a percentage of payroll and as such is similarly non-progressive to the extent that companies hire people across income ranges. The cost to the firm are independent of the income or profits of the firm. > >> >> The unemployed and poor are not excluded. This system works very > >> >> well, despite the recognised inefficiencies and, to some extent, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What I don't see is why it makes an enormous difference whether there is > a single payer, or several parallel payers. With several (or in your case potentially hundreds) patients and firms have choices. It requires the insurer to be responsive. It also gives providers choices allowing them to maintain some freedom and flexibility regarding their working conditions and income. > Surely the principles > governing the collecting of contributions and providing the services is > more important than whether there's a single government agency, or 20 > funds in parallel (much as in Germany at the moment). No - the principles of competition and choice are more important than giving a select body of legislatures a huge amount of money to play with. > >> >> High earners may stay in the normal Krankenkassen insurance scheme, or > >> >> they may opt for private insurance, or even decide to pay for [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > using masses of these services, yet be paying in very little in > contributions. It works out, sort of, in the long run. You are right - I was, incorrectly, referring to the opt out population which you already excluded. My apologies. > >> > However, the equilibrator is, once you go private, your annual > >> > premium is determined by the age cohort premium for the age at which [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > very tightly regulated on how they take contributions and what they must > pay out. American insurers are tightly regulated as well. The point remains - there are more than one and they must compete with each other for business. > They're much more like government agencies than insurance > companies. What difference do you think it would make to Germany if > there were only one Krankenkasse? You would have a single payer and patients and providers would not have a choice. The UK NHS would no longer have a place to send their overflow patients. The accessibility and quality of care you currently receie would decline. The amount of money spent would go up. Providers would drop out of the system and lines would form. > >> >> I would not swap this system for anything the USA currently offers, > >> >> and would be very wary of moving there, even were I completely [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Hmmm. Only for 18 months? So somebody who loses his job, say because of > injury, No - in the case of injury, most have disability insurance, both long and short term. > is up sheet crick That would be sh.t creek > after 18 months? How much are COBRA > contributions, compared with the money the injured person receives from > the public social fund? Short term disability is usually 70% or more of salary while long term generally is 60%. > >> > Private insurance with premiums funded by contributions from > >> > employees and their employers with comprehensive cover, nominal [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Draconian? Or Utopian? ;-) Draconian. > >> The population of the USA is a good deal higher than 163 million, > >> isn't it? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > OK, thanks! Face it - you are fortunate in Germany to have a system that allows universality in coverage and choice in selecting coverage. We, in the US, are likewise fortunate that most have coverage and choice in coverage. What is lacking in the US is the unversality of it and that is best solved by giving access to the current structure, not by changing the entire structure. js > Germany is NOT a single payer system. Correct, but splitting hairs. The German system mandates that funding of coverage for all citizens come primarily from one source, the employers who represent only a fraction of citizens, as opposed to the US where funding comes from employer taxes, employee taxes, corporate premium payments, individual premium payments, and charities. > The system works well BECAUSE it is NOT single payer. In the US, the > poor are not excluded. The unemployed are not excluded either - there > is COBRA. COBRA allows an unemployed person to continue coverage if elected within a set period after being employed. First, you have to be employed, second, you have to come up with the funds, while unemployed, to pay the premiums. The poor are excluded to a far greater degree than you want to admit. Having spent most of my adult life in the for-profit health services biz, I assure you that if you have no cash and no coverage, your services are pretty damn limited. > The system you describe IS the system that 163 million Americans have. > Private insurance with premiums funded by contributions from > employees and their employers with comprehensive cover, nominal cost > sharing, and excellent access and outcomes. And that is the problem (if there is a problem). 163 million have, 120 million don't have. If some degree of access is a "right", we have a problem. If it is not a "right", there's no problem. | "Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote in message <snip> | There is no organization that practices CYA so strongly as the AMA. | [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | it. Make a single payer universal health care system and all the prices | will go down. Sorry, but you have it backwards. IF single payer is approved, prices, i.e., TAXES, will go way up and quality of service along with availability of service will go way down as care is rationed to lower costs......that's the way it's worked everywhere else in the world where it's been tried. Our system, with all it's faults, is infinitely superior to any other system so far devised by anyone.....and we need to focus on what we KNOW works.....a free market with competition and no government interference is the key to lower costs and higher quality care - that's the way it's always worked whenever it's been tried..... PC >| "Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >service will go way down as care is rationed to lower costs......that's the >way it's worked everywhere else in the world where it's been tried. I suggest you compare the per capita medical expense in the USA with the rest of the world. We have the highest costs in the world. What sort of ranking does that give us on infant mortality? Is the average life span in the USA materially longer than it is in the rest of industrialized world? The experience in the rest of the world is for cost effectiveness, Single payer wins by a huge margin. The problem today is insurance is like the Welfare bureaucracy that lacks any oversight at all. The resistance to single payer is like the people who were opposed to welfare reform. In welfare it turned out that only 1 out of ever 3 dollars spent on welfare, ended up being spent on recipients. The people opposed to welfare reform weren't the recipients, it was bureaucracy that was consuming the 67 cents out of every dollar spent!!! The biggest challenge to single payer will be the unemployement it will create as we rip the incredible administrative costs out of the system because we won't need 2000 different insurers with differig standards all trying to enforce 2000 differing sets of rules. >Our system, with all it's faults, is infinitely superior to any other system >so far devised by anyone.....and we need to focus on what we KNOW [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >PC It is interesting to read this thread. It shows there is no solution to medical care in the US. Everyone wants something for nothing. That includes the providers. It is just human nature. We are ethical when profit from it or when we get afraid we will die. A system where everyone pays should be implemented. Then the providers will have a pile of un collectable bills and people will deal with their own pimples. Cosmetic surgery will be for the very rich. The gal next door will not be in the docs office every other day. OK with me. It is interesting to see the motivation behind some posts. Medicine is very profitable. We are abused by some elements of society. Really don't matter which. We all are a bunch of suckers. Glad when the election is over. Maybe the fads will fade and we can get back to basics. We do need to look at the socialism of many educational units, particularly medical schools. Much of the welfare is used by special interest to promote their causes. We could spend weeks on the extensions of the arguments here, maybe we should look at grants which quietly flow to special interest.. Guy > It is interesting to read this thread. It shows > there is no solution to medical care in the > US. This thread has become hot-botton spaghetti. But I'll jump in too. My experience with private insurance is they will weed-out the high risk customers (us DMs for example) thereby defeating the need for insurance. So private enterprise finds loop-holes in the system to eliminate costly customers. These are many of the people that fall through the cracks as uninsured. When I lived in NJ 22 years ago, high risk car insurance customers were placed in a pool and a lottery system picked them for each insurance company to provide coverage. So Governmental intervention was required to keep insurance companies honest. Therefore, health-care in the private enterprise sector is doomed to fail without strong Governmental oversight. So your tax dollars are still working on health-care along with your insurance premiums. As another example, when I moved to Massachusetts for a new job in 2001, Warren Buffett's GEICO insurance company refused to write policies in MA; and, I was given 30 days to find another car insurance company (46 year old male with a spotless driving record). My insurance rates doubled in the move. So private enterprise just pulled the plug on Massachusetts. Again, some Governmental intervention is required. Finally, I don't like the idea of some company making a profit from my illness. That just rubs me the wrong way, as I'm just some number on their balance sheet. Therefore, I want some nonprofit system providing my health-care in an unbiased fashion. IMO, it's important to remove the profit motive from the equation when it comes to health-care. Private enterprise can never do this and therefore will fail on health-care. In any case, I agree that there is no good solution in the US. SignatureJim Dumas T1 4/86, background retinopathy, rarely hypoglycemic: <1/mo. lispro+R+U+NPH daily, moderate exercise, typically <6% HbA1c > >| "Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith99@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > The experience in the rest of the world is for cost effectiveness, > Single payer wins by a huge margin. Only if you consider rationing cost effective. > The problem today is insurance is > like the Welfare bureaucracy that lacks any oversight at all. The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bureaucracy that was consuming the 67 cents out of every dollar > spent!!! Boy are you confused. Welfare reform involved REDUCING government spending and getting people into private sector jobs. The same people who opposed welfare reform are the ones who want a government take over of health care - and in both cases for the same reason: they want MORE government welfare spending. You want to INCREASE government spending on health care by at least a factor of 5. The government has already proven it CANNOT run Medicare without it going bankrupt. So how can it magically do better by running it all? > The biggest challenge to single payer will be the unemployement it > will create as we rip the incredible administrative costs out of the > system because we won't need 2000 different insurers with differig > standards all trying to enforce 2000 differing sets of rules. Sure. Name a major government program that cost less than the private version. without destroying the quality. Usually government does both - greatly increase costs and significantly reduce quality. > Sorry, but you have it backwards. IF single payer is approved, prices, i.e., > TAXES, will go way up and quality of service along with availability of > service will go way down as care is rationed to lower costs......that's the > way it's worked everywhere else in the world where it's been tried. No argument there. > Our system, with all it's faults, is infinitely superior to any other system > so far devised by anyone.....and we need to focus on what we KNOW > works.....a free market with competition and no government interference is > the key to lower costs and higher quality care - that's the way it's always > worked whenever it's been tried..... But the current system leaves out a substantial (1/6) portion of the population. The universal care argument is that at least basic health services should be a right, not a perq of the fortunate. It is not just the indigent that lack coverage, btw. We self employed folks have been priced out of the coverage market (in part by legislation requiring coverage of benefits that we'd be happy to forego), yet we still have to pay for the elderly (double!), the government workers, and (through the pricing mechanism) the corporate employees. I have no problem with the free market restricting Ferraris to the fortunate few. I'm not so sure that healthcare falls into the same category. | > Sorry, but you have it backwards. IF single payer is approved, prices, i.e., | > TAXES, will go way up and quality of service along with availability of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] | population. The universal care argument is that at least basic health | services should be a right, not a perq of the fortunate. That's nonsense - no one has a "right" to anything that picks the pockets of their brothers..... We all have the RIGHT and the DUTY to provide for ourselves..... | It is not just the indigent that lack coverage, btw. We self employed | folks have been priced out of the coverage market (in part by | legislation requiring coverage of benefits that we'd be happy to | forego), yet we still have to pay for the elderly (double!), the | government workers, and (through the pricing mechanism) the corporate | employees. The inequities of the system, which are real enough, don't necessarily mitigate to letting the government handle the matter and increase costs while degrading care to everyone.....the analogy that applies is the "dumbing down" of America in public education by making the dumbest among us the criterion by which education is delivered and they yardstick by which all are measured. It was better when "excellence" and "achievement" were the norms and the goals.... We need reform, to be sure, but single payer isn't the answer.....the free market IS the answer, along with total privatization of medical care and ALL social services. If we can get government out and the bureaucrats out, all will benefit and prices will go down drastically.... | I have no problem with the free market restricting Ferraris to the | fortunate few. I'm not so sure that healthcare falls into the same category. The free market applies far more to healthcare than it does to Ferraris - a free market that benefits ALL, not the rich and not the poor, is an indisputable boon to everyone.... PC Ahh, an honest man Ayn Rand would be proud! Now, I don't agree with you, but you are stating an honest opinion instead of babbling on falsehoods about the state of Healthcare, and denying the administrative cost of Ppd hospitalization plans!! > | > Sorry, but you have it backwards. IF single payer is approved, prices, > i.e., [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > PC Signature"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present" Glen Cook | Ahh, an honest man | | Ayn Rand would be proud! I'm sure she would - I met her at several seminars years ago when she was traveling around the country holding forth on the "Objectivist" Philosophy. Although she was barely five feet tall and weighed about ninety pounds, she was a towering intellect and she was dead bang right about the basic struggle, which was, and is, the individual versus the collective....! | Now, I don't agree with you, but you are stating an honest opinion | instead of babbling on falsehoods about the state of Healthcare, and | denying the administrative cost of Ppd hospitalization plans!! I don't require agreement, and I welcome discussion, but I have grown weary of the all too common practice in these venues of demonizing people for the crime of holding a different view. Much too "PC" for this "PC".....:) PC > | Ahh, an honest man > | [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > was a towering intellect and she was dead bang right about the basic > struggle, which was, and is, the individual versus the collective....! So John Gault rides again with more drivel. We should have guessed it. | > | Ahh, an honest man | > | [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | | So John Gault rides again with more drivel. We should have guessed it. Who are "we" and please specify what "drivel" you're referring to..... Can't deal with an opinion or belief set other than your own?.....:) PC > > Sorry, but you have it backwards. IF single payer is approved, prices, i.e., > > TAXES, will go way up and quality of service along with availability of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > population. The universal care argument is that at least basic health > services should be a right, not a perq of the fortunate. When you start counting up the uninsured you get some pretty interesting numbers. Some self-select to be uninsured even in the absence of financial constraints. 8% of people earnming more than 75K per year are uninsured (7 million total) Some do not avail themselves of government programs that would provide them with health care insurance - SCHIPS is under enrolled by 5 to 7 million kids. Some do not avail themselves of employer provided health care insurance for various reasons. This could be as much as 7 or 8 million. Some are illegal aliens and whether or not we should pay for their health care is an intersting question that is political, not medical. This is estimated to be in the 3 million range. That is 24 million of the 42 million uninsured. That leaves less than half with a bonafide gap. And this gap grows every year as the state Medicaid systems, in an effort to balnace their budgets, constrain the eligibility criteria. 14 million with household incomes under 25K are uninsured. That is 150% of the poverty line for a family of 4. Now - who's fault is that? > It is not just the indigent that lack coverage, btw. We self employed > folks have been priced out of the coverage market (in part by > legislation requiring coverage of benefits that we'd be happy to > forego), yet we still have to pay for the elderly (double!), the > government workers, and (through the pricing mechanism) the corporate > employees. Like I said - give the right incentives and you'd be surprised. The fact that you are self-employed, though, is no defense for not buying into an insurance scheme. > I have no problem with the free market restricting Ferraris to the > fortunate few. I'm not so sure that healthcare falls into the same category. You want me to buy your health care insurance for you? No, I don't think so. I would support incentives for you to pyurchase insurance, I would support a group buying pool arrangement for self employeds, and I would support minimalist coverage (catastrophic inpatient, for example). js | > > Sorry, but you have it backwards. IF single payer is approved, prices, i.e., | > > TAXES, will go way up and quality of service along with availability of [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] | constraints. 8% of people earnming more than 75K per year are | uninsured (7 million total) Good point that most everyone ignores... | Some do not avail themselves of government programs that would provide | them with health care insurance - SCHIPS is under enrolled by 5 to 7 | million kids. Good point that most everyone ignores.... It's also true that "some" less scrupulous advocates of single payer count children who are covered by their parent's insurance as "uninsured"...... | Some do not avail themselves of employer provided health care | insurance for various reasons. This could be as much as 7 or 8 | million. Good point that most everyone ignores.... | Some are illegal aliens and whether or not we should pay for their | health care is an intersting question that is political, not medical. | This is estimated to be in the 3 million range. Actually, the number is closer to 10 million. There are more than 3 million in Southern California alone..... | That is 24 million of the 42 million uninsured. I think it's closer to 35 of the alleged 42 million.... | That leaves less than half with a bonafide gap. And this gap grows | every year as the state Medicaid systems, in an effort to balnace | their budgets, constrain the eligibility criteria. 14 million with | household incomes under 25K are uninsured. That is 150% of the | poverty line for a family of 4. Now - who's fault is that? The answer to those folks isn't government tax-supported programs. The solution is private charity - which took care of all such folks up until 1943. Before that, nobody had health insurance. People paid their bills themselves.... | > It is not just the indigent that lack coverage, btw. We self employed | > folks have been priced out of the coverage market (in part by | > legislation requiring coverage of benefits that we'd be happy to | > forego), yet we still have to pay for the elderly (double!), the | > government workers, and (through the pricing mechanism) the corporate | > employees. These inequities require reform. You are also the victims of one of the mechanisms used to transfer wealth from those who produce everything to those who produce nothing.... | Like I said - give the right incentives and you'd be surprised. The | fact that you are self-employed, though, is no defense for not buying | into an insurance scheme. With the proviso that fairness and justice come back into the system through reform... | > I have no problem with the free market restricting Ferraris to the | > fortunate few. I'm not so sure that healthcare falls into the same category. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | and I would support minimalist coverage (catastrophic inpatient, for | example). Actually, I think he does want you to buy his healthcare insurance for him - after all, "free medical" is a right for those who advocate single payer and any other socialist scheme.....:) PC > You want me to buy your health care insurance for you? No, I don't > think so. Actually, that would be very kind and generous of you. > I would support incentives for you to pyurchase insurance, > I would support a group buying pool arrangement for self employeds, > and I would support minimalist coverage (catastrophic inpatient, for > example). But even in a pool (which any insurance is) the young, healthy, clean living Democrats that work as personal trainers will transfer their income to old, rum-swilling, diabetic, genetically inferior Republicans that work as roofers. It's still about (1) whether everyone should have some minimum standard of access, and (2) what is the mechanism for assuring that access. If the answer to (1) is "no", the answer to (2) is moot. I'm usually accused of being just to the right of Attilla, but I think the answer to (1) is "yes". Unfortunately, I can't find the answer to (2) without substantial gov't involvement and a helluva lot of transfer of wealth. I don't think this thread will solve the problem, but maybe it will make some folks aware of the fact that the solution is not as simple as politicians like to make it. > > You want me to buy your health care insurance for you? No, I don't > > think so. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > some folks aware of the fact that the solution is not as simple as > politicians like to make it. Instead of wringing our hands and making beggars out of people, why not demand and insure that parents educate their children so they won't become dependant upon government handouts? As long as you support a beggar, a beggar will take the path of least resistance and that path will be you. SignatureBrooks Gregory > > You want me to buy your health care insurance for you? No, I don't > > think so. > > Actually, that would be very kind and generous of you. Not if I can help it. I'll share risk and that is about as far as it goes. > > I would support incentives for you to pyurchase insurance, > > I would support a group buying pool arrangement for self employeds, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > income to old, rum-swilling, diabetic, genetically inferior Republicans > that work as roofers. Depends on the pool, then, doesn't it. I'm all for discounts for clean living - and penalties for not so clean living. I don't subscribe to genetics as a criterion for rate setting. > It's still about (1) whether everyone should have some minimum standard > of access, and (2) what is the mechanism for assuring that access. Major Medical part A - employer mandated. > If the answer to (1) is "no", the answer to (2) is moot. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Unfortunately, I can't find the answer to (2) without substantial gov't > involvement and a helluva lot of transfer of wealth. Nope - do it JUST like it is being done for 163 million people today - use the employer vehicle. > I don't think this thread will solve the problem, but maybe it will make > some folks aware of the fact that the solution is not as simple as > politicians like to make it. The SPUC solution is simplistic - not simple - which makes it attractive to the the young, healthy, clean living Democrats that work as personal trainers because they earn a whole lot less than old, rum-swilling, diabetic, genetically inferior Republicans who now own roofing companies. js > Not if I can help it. I'll share risk and that is about as far as it > goes. > > Depends on the pool, then, doesn't it. > I'm all for discounts for clean living - and penalties for not so > clean living. Since you picked nits on "single payer", I'll pick nits on "insurance". In insurance, the insuror buys the risk. Lloyd's insures a ship and keeps the entire premium if the ship does not sink, loses big if it does. Virtually all health plans are pools for prepaid health care, not insurance. The plan makes money from administration of the plan, not from assuming any risk. When Medicare began paying HMOs a regional average premium for 'are beneficiaries, the first game played was to skim the low experience patients, leaving the high experience patients in Part A. Selective enrollment. The national health schemes create a single pool, and the premium is the average cost of care for the 280 million pool members. Half over-pay, half under-pay. That's considered fair because it is assumed that as you age you will migrate from the over-payers to the under-payers. Your proposal, for competitive free market plans, would give rise to small pools offering very low premiums for fitness buffs, and pricing older diabetics out of the market. Is the choice then to force unemployed sick folks to pay enormous premiums with funds they don't have, or let them go without coverage? Or do you not see selective enrollment as a problem? > Major Medical part A - employer mandated. Is it your idea that employers will pay for coverage for all citizens, or just employed citizens? If all, to whom would the funds go and how would they be distributed to the plans? > > Not if I can help it. I'll share risk and that is about as far as it > > goes. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > insurance. The plan makes money from administration of the plan, not > from assuming any risk. This is a very stupid comment. Private plans do everything possible to shed risk. Then, after loading up on people they think risk free, they wait a few years until some claims come in. Then they offer everyone with no claims a NEW policy and leave all those with claims in the old, and raise their rates until they have to drop out. That kind of behavior shows extreme risk aversion. Don't you think it time to start posting something closer to truth? >> Virtually all health plans are pools for prepaid health care, not >> insurance. The plan makes money from administration of the plan, not [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Don't you think it time to start posting something closer to truth? Let's make a deal. I'm just gonna ignore all yer posts. You can ignore mine. > >> Virtually all health plans are pools for prepaid health care, not > >> insurance. The plan makes money from administration of the plan, not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Let's make a deal. I'm just gonna ignore all yer posts. You can ignore mine. So you can keep posting incorrect information? Insurance companies show extreme risk aversion. That is why private health insurance cannot deal with the nation's health problems. They get rid of problems. > >> Virtually all health plans are pools for prepaid health care, not > >> insurance. The plan makes money from administration of the plan, not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Let's make a deal. I'm just gonna ignore all yer posts. You can ignore mine. I've been ignoring his garbage for a week or so now, and it makes this group more enjoyable. I encourage to you and all others here to flat out ignore him. > > >> Virtually all health plans are pools for prepaid health care, not > > >> insurance. The plan makes money from administration of the plan, not [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > more enjoyable. I encourage to you and all others here to flat out ignore > him. Private plans shed risk, and ignoring the truth is not going to change the FActs. > Private plans shed risk, and ignoring the truth is not going to change > the FActs. You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the a.s. The vast majority of the health plans in the US are prohibited by law from assumption of risk. | > Private plans shed risk, and ignoring the truth is not going to change | > the FActs. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | The vast majority of the health plans in the US are prohibited by law | from assumption of risk. Don't confuse him with truth - it forces him to think and that makes his head hurt.....:) PC > | > Private plans shed risk, and ignoring the truth is not going to > change [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > PC Shedding of risk and the death spiral is what insurance is all about. >> Private plans shed risk, and ignoring the truth is not going to change >> the FActs. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The vast majority of the health plans in the US are prohibited by law >from assumption of risk. Mike, where does the input for legislation originate? My friend is a lobbyist and his comments help me see the whole story. I am at the stage where I do not care what you "leaders" do. I am sure you will take care of your interest. I was ripped off two days ago be a courtesy referral. I did short circuit part of the game. I do not and cannot use glasses. It used to be you could trust a real professional. I have another name for them now. They make the Mafia seem tame and I really think they believe in their right to do what goes on. Premed students do not get much history or economics. In the stockbroker arena it used to be said that the sucker list was dentist first, and doctors second. Too much easy money and not enough time. What goes around comes around. Guy > > Private plans shed risk, and ignoring the truth is not going to change > > the FActs. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The vast majority of the health plans in the US are prohibited by law > from assumption of risk. Try purchasing a health plan if you are not the member of a large company. You will suddenly see that shedding of risk is what so-called incurance is all about. > > Not if I can help it. I'll share risk and that is about as far as it > > goes. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Since you picked nits on "single payer", I'll pick nits on "insurance". > In insurance, the insuror buys the risk. The insurer is paid to assume the individuals financial risk. > Lloyd's insures a ship and > keeps the entire premium if the ship does not sink, loses big if it does. Lloyds insures hundreds of ships of which, statistically, one or more will sink. It loses when the number of sinking ships exceeds the amount of premium collected. Lloyds makes money on the float, not on the premiums. > Virtually all health plans are pools for prepaid health care, not > insurance. Blue Cross - the classic inpatient indemnity program - is an insurance program. > The plan makes money from administration of the plan, not > from assuming any risk. Huh? Insurers spread the individual risk across a large pool. They are at risk if their actuaries are wrong. They are like the house in Vegas, not the guy playing blackjack. Insurers don't play to beat the odds - they calculate the odds and price accordingly with a margin and get to play the float. > When Medicare began paying HMOs a regional average premium for 'are > beneficiaries, the first game played was to skim the low experience > patients, leaving the high experience patients in Part A. Selective > enrollment. Cherry picking is something we all do. When New York Strips are on sale at Kroger, I go there and buy them even though I don't usually shop there. You? Medicare is a classic example of what should NOT be done with health care. > The national health schemes create a single pool, and the premium is the > average cost of care for the 280 million pool members. Half over-pay, > half under-pay. That's considered fair because it is assumed that as you > age you will migrate from the over-payers to the under-payers. Not when they are tax-based funded. The rich over pay and the poor under pay irrespective of age. > Your proposal, for competitive free market plans, would give rise to > small pools offering very low premiums for fitness buffs, and pricing > older diabetics out of the market. Not if they are employer based. How do you think 163 million are insured today? > Is the choice then to force unemployed sick folks to pay enormous > premiums with funds they don't have, or let them go without coverage? Because they didn't start out as unemployed sick folks. They start out as employed well folks. They became sick - and that's why they bought insurance - because if they became sick they would be protected from financial risk. That's why premiums were paid. In every pool there will be a group of healthies, a group of sicks, and a group that is becoming sick or getting healthy. > Or do you not see selective enrollment as a problem? No - I don't. Imagine GM with 80,000 employees plus another 100,000 dependents. Some of those folks will have diabetes, some will not. Some will get diabetes, others will get islet cell transplants and no longer have diabetes. > > Major Medical part A - employer mandated. > > Is it your idea that employers will pay for coverage for all citizens, > or just employed citizens? Employees and their dependents plus retirees. > If all, to whom would the funds go and how would they be distributed to > the plans? Funds go to plans. It works just fine today. The only difference is - employers don't have the option and employees must be covered. The gap is in the unemployed - but that is an issue that can be managed JUST like unemployment insurance. Use a payroll tax to fund it and a third party to manage it. There is no need to reconstruct the entire medical/financial system to ensure health converage to the folks currently not covered. js > The insurer is paid to assume the individuals financial risk. That's almost right. > Lloyds insures hundreds of ships of which, statistically, one or more > will sink. It loses when the number of sinking ships exceeds the > amount of premium collected. Lloyds makes money on the float, not on > the premiums. No. Lloyd's forms a syndicate for each individual policy. When the ship sinks, the syndicate pays. > Blue Cross - the classic inpatient indemnity program - is an insurance > program. No. None of the assets of Blue Cross are at risk. By charter. Blue cross uses actuarial estimates of payouts, and sets its premiums to cover those payouts, plus administration. Blue Cross does buy insurance, however, to cover excess payments from, eg, a flu epidemic. Lloyds forms syndicates to purchase that risk. Ditto virtually all health plans. > Huh? Insurers spread the individual risk across a large pool. No. Insurors buy the risk of specific individual events, the risk that the WTC will fall down, or yer house will burn down, or you'll wreck yer car. It is common for small individual events to be insured with a common contract, but every contract specifies a specific limit for a specific eventuality. Health plans spread the variance in individual experience across the actuarial projections. There is no limit on a health plan's exposure to an individual contract. They > are at risk if their actuaries are wrong. They are like the house in > Vegas, not the guy playing blackjack. Insurers don't play to beat the > odds - they calculate the odds and price accordingly with a margin and > get to play the float. Insurors calculate the odds of a specific, predetermined payout. Health plans calculate the payout, and divide that amount by the number of participants. >> When Medicare began paying HMOs a regional average premium for 'are >> beneficiaries, the first game played was to skim the low experience >> patients, leaving the high experience patients in Part A. Selective >> enrollment. > Cherry picking is something we all do. When New York Strips are on > sale at Kroger, I go there and buy them even though I don't usually > shop there. You? Not a very good analogy. > Medicare is a classic example of what should NOT be done with health > care. Yer the one promoting Part A for all. Is that not Medicare? >> The national health schemes create a single pool, and the premium is the >> average cost of care for the 280 million pool members. Half over-pay, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not when they are tax-based funded. The rich over pay and the poor > under pay irrespective of age. Yer the one promoting taking the cost from employers. Is that not a tax? >> Your proposal, for competitive free market plans, would give rise to >> small pools offering very low premiums for fitness buffs, and pricing >> older diabetics out of the market. > > Not if they are employer based. How do you think 163 million are > insured today? And what does "employer-based" mean? >> Is the choice then to force unemployed sick folks to pay enormous >> premiums with funds they don't have, or let them go without coverage? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Some will get diabetes, others will get islet cell transplants and no > longer have diabetes. Imagine Joes Lawn Service with 3 employees plus another 5 dependents. All their assets combined couldn't get them an appointment with a transplant surgeon. >> > Major Medical part A - employer mandated. >> >> Is it your idea that employers will pay for coverage for all citizens, >> or just employed citizens? > > Employees and their dependents plus retirees. But that's already largely the case. Send the rest to the ovens? >> If all, to whom would the funds go and how would they be distributed to >> the plans? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > managed JUST like unemployment insurance. Use a payroll tax to fund > it and a third party to manage it. Tax???? Gov't????? > There is no need to reconstruct the entire medical/financial system to > ensure health converage to the folks currently not covered. But all yer talking about IS the folks currently covered. > Health plans spread the variance in individual experience across the > actuarial projections. There is no limit on a health plan's exposure to > an individual contract. More incorrect information. Health plans have a very specifc LIFETIME limit expressed in $$$$$$. If you get seriously burned, for example, the average health plan is quickly exhausted. You end up a pauper. > > > You want me to buy your health care insurance for you? No, I don't > > > think so. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I'm all for discounts for clean living - and penalties for not so > clean living. Clean living? No one lives clean according to current fads. Everyone is PRE-something. You cannot get a grant for current diseases anymore, so the system now calls everyone PRE-diabetic, PRE-hypertensive and so forth and so on. Next we will not have life, only PRE-death. > > Sorry, but you have it backwards. IF single payer is approved, prices, i.e., > > TAXES, will go way up and quality of service along with availability of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > population. The universal care argument is that at least basic health > services should be a right, not a perq of the fortunate. In order to advance the discussion to a more meaningful point, what are the actual stats... once you exclude those who have an income, could afford health insurance, but opt out of it because they are young, have other bills, saving for a house, etc etc etc? That is not a small group. Now, a point that I think most of us here could agree on - even those against a single payer platform I think - exclude all children as, imo, they deserve coverage and should not be left hanging because of the incompetency of their parents. What are we then left with? I'd be very curious to know if anyone has some valid estimates on that. Now, of those that would be left, any mental health workers here who could lend an opinion as to how many of those really belong in some sort of a psychiatric institution? Some thoughts to consider. >> But the current system leaves out a substantial (1/6) portion of the >> population. The universal care argument is that at least basic health [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > health insurance, but opt out of it because they are young, have other > bills, saving for a house, etc etc etc? That is not a small group. That's a legitimate point. And it begs the question as to whether anyone should be allowed NOT to have coverage. When that young, healthy, saving-for-a-house, uninsured person falls out of a tree someone will have to pay for treating his compound fractures (even if we dump him once he is stabilized) and few folks have the assets to cover that. He escapes paying for it, the dirty bastard. If we require he have coverage (gov't intervention in our personal affairs and trampling the rights of the individual) those of us that have will pay for the coverage of the have nots. I am semi-retired, underemployed (by most standards), and uninsured. I choose to be uninsured because the premiums are so damned high relative to my health needs. If a medical disaster should happen to me (knock on wood) my assets are sufficiently sheltered that someone else will have to pay for me to be put back together. Maybe that's not fair. But what the hell, I pay for Medicare (double!), I pay for corporate benefits (in everything I buy), let them look out for me. There's also a cost inefficiency in such an arrangement. Right now I'm negotiating with eye docs for removal of a cataract in my right eye. I'll delay the left eye until Medicare kicks in. Timing should be just right. I spend very little on my diabetes care, I'm sure I can make it until Medicare coverage kicks in, then I'll catch up. A significant portion of Medicare costs are the result of such delayed care. Not smart if you are the one paying for Medicare, and total lifetime per capita costs could be reduced if there were a continuum of coverage. > > "Evelyn Ruut" <mama-lionsox@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message > news:<x6dsc.137757$WA4.24898@twister.nyc.rr.com>... [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > The profit motive works well in our society for everything but in the area > of health care. Explain how market competition based models are inefficient for health care. > I don't think insurance companies have your good health as their motive, > they have getting your money as their motive, and paying out as little of it > as they can get away with. Of course they have your good health as an objective - well people don't get hospitalized. > Doctors ditto. Prove it with data. > Doctors claim their malpractice insurance costs are astronomical, and they > probably are. If you are an OB GYN you are paying 100K plus. > They should clean up their own house first and crack down on inadequate > doctors whose screwups cause high payouts, and then their insurance premiums > would be lower. So, only bad doctors are sued? > Try suggesting THAT to your doctor. it has been > There is no organization that practices CYA so strongly as the AMA. Sure, you probably want to meet Georgy. By the way, about a third of docs are actually members of AMA. > Doctors make too much money, insurance companies make too much money too. You make too much money - give me some. > The system is broke and we end users are the casualties. Too bad. To bad - I'd suggest planning for the future. > WE pay for the uninsured and the indigent ANYWAY, but nobody wants to admit > it. Make a single payer universal health care system and all the prices > will go down. Yeh - right along with the quality, access, and responsiveness. Do your homework - start with the fiasco called the NHS. Next, look at the resounding success of the VA and Medicare. Now, tell me again how a single pauer system is supposed to be better? js > The profit motive works well in our society for everything but in the area > of health care. Why should that be? What's so unique about health care? > I don't think insurance companies have your good health as their motive, > they have getting your money as their motive, and paying out as little of it > as they can get away with. And your local supermarket does not have your satisfied appetite as its motive. But we have a wonderful array of food choices at very low cost (except where the government deliberately props up prices). Of course, if the government took over the supermarkets because some people don't get enough to eat and had everyone issued pre-paid food stamps and you didn't actually pay for the food you "bought," how long do you think we would have such cheap food in such great variety? > Doctors ditto. Actually, doctors probably are more altruistic than any service providers you are likely to run into. I sure would never put up with the crap many of them have to. How many other people are required by law to provide service to someone he knows will never pay him? Ordinarily that's called slavery. > Doctors claim their malpractice insurance costs are astronomical, and they > probably are. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Try suggesting THAT to your doctor. What about the doctor who files a complaint about another doctor and gets sued himself? Even if he wins, he loses, because he has to pay for the lawyer himself and there are no "loser pays" laws as there should be. Many malpractice lawsuits involve NO wrong doing on the part of the doctor - notably cerebral palsy suits based on claims the baby was deprived of oxygen during birth, for which there is no evidence All you need is a shyster lawyer, a jury with a combined I.Q. of about 1000, and the defendant wins the lottery. Of course, the real winners are the lawyers, who collect about 2/3 of the awards, and the losers are those of us who pay for these millionaire lawyers with unnecessarily high health care costs. I don't know of any millionaire doctors (at least not ones who do real medicine, I suppose there are lots of vanity plastic surgeons who are - but then, THEY'RE paid out of pocket). I know of lots of millionaire trial lawyers. One even ran for the Democrat nomination for president this year and is still a viable candidate for the V.P. spot. I even know one personally, from school, who has a mansion in Newport, R. I. > There is no organization that practices CYA so strongly as the AMA. Politicians, lawyers, journalists, teachers, ... Do we have better politics than ever? Better courts than ever? Better newspapers than ever? Better education than ever? No. No. No. Hell, no. But we DO have better health care than ever. If doctors were performing like these other professions, life expectancy would be about 50 - certainly less than when FDR started Social Security. > Doctors make too much money, insurance companies make too much money too. I wish on you, and all who think that doctors make too much money, the quality of doctor you would get if they made one third to one half as much. And I would support laws to allow you to let anyone you choose perform surgery on you. Not for me and my family, thanks. By the way - who should make MORE than the person who literally has your life in his hands? > The system is broke and we end users are the casualties. Too bad. The system is broke because the government got far too much involved. > WE pay for the uninsured and the indigent ANYWAY, but nobody wants to admit > it. Make a single payer universal health care system and all the prices > will go down. Sure - just like Medicare, right? Can you say, "Bankrupt?" > I wish on you, and all who think that doctors make too much money, the > quality of doctor you would get if they made one third to one half as much. > And I would support laws to allow you to let anyone you choose perform > surgery on you. I have experience with two groups of doctors paid for and supervised by the U.S. government: military (ten years in the Navy) and V.A. (two years). There are good ones in both outfits, but overall.... And often, the good ones are limited by "Da Rulez" SignatureWes Groleau A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape. Lengthwise. > > How would we pay for it? > > Funding will come primarily from existing government health care spending [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > for individuals to select the type of health coverage they want and > the services they want to access. > More drivel. The costs of medicine in the USA are not even close to free market. They are administered costs and you pay what is asked. You get access to physicians based on where they want to live, not where care is needed. Your only choice is to quit your job and move to where doctors want to have practices. Otherwise, do without. If you want access, you have to give up your life and move to where they want you. | More drivel. The costs of medicine in the USA are not even close to free | market. They are administered costs and you pay what is asked. You get | access to physicians based on where they want to live, not where care is | needed. Your only choice is to quit your job and move to where doctors want | to have practices. Otherwise, do without. If you want access, you have to | give up your life and move to where they want you. This one doesn't even deserve an answer - it's mindless.....:( And, for the record, it's absolutely untrue..... PC > Save Medicare by making young people share the cost? isn't it enough > already that we pay 1.45% of every dollar we earn into a program that > we will never use? Actually, it's 2.9%. You just don't see the part the employer pays because it's pre-stolen. According to the trustees of Medicare, "Projected Medicare costs would exceed those for Social Security in 2024." We're paying 15% for Social Security now. Do the math yourself. > > "Sarah" <clslate@gwtc.net> wrote in message > news:<u8GdnVZNluheri3dRVn-jA@rapidnet.com>... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > We're paying 15% for Social Security now. Do the math yourself. Do you folks know how many charitible hospitals there are in the United States? If everyone would start demanding that they do what they get that tax exemption for doing, instead of buying more real estate, building bigger churches, hospital Taj Mahals and meddling in political affairs, we would have no healthcare problem. But, no, we have allowed ourselves to be suckered, by the politicians and insurance companies, into believing that the only way we can save ourselves is to provide the insurance companies with 44 million more premium payors. We don't seem to be too smart, now do we? SignatureBrooks Gregory >> "Sarah" <clslate@gwtc.net> wrote in message >news:<u8GdnVZNluheri3dRVn-jA@rapidnet.com>... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >According to the trustees of Medicare, "Projected Medicare costs would >exceed those for Social Security in 2024." In large part due to Reagan and Bush borrowing against it, and now Bush junior adding unpopular and unfunded extras to it too. Let a liberal take over. See how the conservatives have messed things up? >We're paying 15% for Social Security now. Do the math yourself. Obnoxious and arrogant, switching the burden of proof. A socialist spammer... Thinks the answer's to be found... In big government. SignatureI hate spam, but that isn't really part of my email address. Remove the string "HatesSpam" from this email address before you use it: BobHatesSpam@Blaylock.to Ever wonder what it'd be like to be a blood-sucking parasite? http://tinyurl.com/7wxk > A socialist spammer... > Thinks the answer's to be found... > In big government. Which is what the current government is trying, not socialism. Bush upped spending 500 billion. > A socialist spammer... > Thinks the answer's to be found... > In big government. And you think that monopoly medicine provides any alternatives? There are NONE. Pay what is asked or get lost. That is your solution: twice as expensive and getting more so. You spam for the rich. >> A socialist spammer... >> Thinks the answer's to be found... >> In big government. > And you think that monopoly medicine provides any alternatives? There >are NONE. Pay what is asked or get lost. That is your solution: twice as >expensive and getting more so. You spam for the rich. No, there is competition in present medicine. It is the government run operations which provide no alternatives. It often ends up that you are stuck with the inadequate doctor they assign you, or you get NOTHING. I have had some experience with government directives here. When my late mother was injured in an automobile accident, the ambulance could not take her to the hospital she asked for, but had to take her to the nearest accredited hospital. She had abominable care until she did get moved. Doctors are not equal, and hospitals are not equal. But there is no way that governments can take that into account. Governments, and to too great an extent insurance companies, insist that all physicians in a given specialty in a given area be paid the same. This encourages mediocrity. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 >>> A socialist spammer... >>> Thinks the answer's to be found... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >It often ends up that you are stuck with the inadequate >doctor they assign you, or you get NOTHING. Maybe you need to go back to econ class buddy, but only with easy entry and exit is there truly competition, and that exists nowhere i nthe US for healthcare. >I have had some experience with government directives here. >When my late mother was injured in an automobile accident, >the ambulance could not take her to the hospital she asked >for, but had to take her to the nearest accredited hospital. >She had abominable care until she did get moved. All anecdotal evidence. Gonna tell us about your sex life next too? >>>> A socialist spammer... >>>> Thinks the answer's to be found... >>>> In big government. >>> And you think that monopoly medicine provides any alternatives? There >>>are NONE. Pay what is asked or get lost. That is your solution: twice as >>>expensive and getting more so. You spam for the rich. >>No, there is competition in present medicine. It is the >>government run operations which provide no alternatives. >>It often ends up that you are stuck with the inadequate >>doctor they assign you, or you get NOTHING. >Maybe you need to go back to econ class buddy, but only with easy >entry and exit is there truly competition, and that exists nowhere i >nthe US for healthcare. It would if the government got completely out of it, except for the antitrust provisions. The Supreme Court ruled against the anticompetitive measures on the part of physicians and medical organizations. The ones we have now are on the part of the HMOs, with some court cases against them, "insurance" companies, and the government. I have published little in economics, but I am known in econometrics. I suggest you check with them. Also, if you are so knowledgeable about economics, what is the tragedy of the commons? This is what you are suggesting we impose, a commons. >>I have had some experience with government directives here. >>When my late mother was injured in an automobile accident, >>the ambulance could not take her to the hospital she asked >>for, but had to take her to the nearest accredited hospital. >>She had abominable care until she did get moved. >All anecdotal evidence. Gonna tell us about your sex life next too? You are not likely to find much else for either point of view. You do not believe the waiting lists in Canada, or even worse from the NHS in England. It is "free", if the government will let you have it at all. SignatureThis address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 > Insurance companies do not heal or treat anyone. And neither does the government, or trial lawyers. They drive up costs much more than insurance companies. > Non-profit national health insurance will actually decrease total health > care spending while providing more treatment and services -- through [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of the uninsured and to provide full prescription drug coverage for everyone > in the United States. Then explain why government run Medicare is rapidly going bankrupt. > How would we pay for it? > Funding will come primarily from existing government health care spending [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > federal dollars for health care. The American people are already paying for > universal health care; they're just not getting it. Promises, promises. All lies. The government promised Medicare would cost only 1/10th of what it actually does. You just can't believe the government when it's looking to expand its power and control over our lives. > Privately delivered health care, publicly financed -- has worked well in > other countries, none of which spend as much per capita on health care as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Canada, the savings in administrative costs (10% to private insurers) would > be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage." Again, explain why the single payer Medicare system is going bankrupt. > It is sound economics -- what actuaries call "Spreading the Risk" -- to > extend Medicare to younger and healthier sectors of our population, thereby > putting everyone in one insurance pool. It permanently saves and improves > Medicare, while eliminating duplicative private and government > bureaucracies. Why does Medicare need to be saved if it's so wonderful? "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." >> Insurance companies do not heal or treat anyone. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Then explain why government run Medicare is rapidly going bankrupt. Because of prior borrowing by Reagan and Bush with SS money and Bu$sh's screwups, not the system prior to his taking office. >> How would we pay for it? >> Funding will come primarily from existing government health care spending [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >You just can't believe the government when it's looking to expand its power >and control over our lives. Exactly what I mean by voting out Bush. See how much he's increased spending and power with the patriot act, and our economy is still bad off? That's why we need less conservatives. >> Privately delivered health care, publicly financed -- has worked well in >> other countries, none of which spend as much per capita on health care as [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Again, explain why the single payer Medicare system is going bankrupt. Due to the Bush adminsitration and conservatives, not by liberals. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.