O/T: Fired Up, Ready To Go

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:46:05 -0700, DGDevin wrote:

> Who pays for the 20% administrative overhead the insurance companies
> absorb today? Health insurance administration in Canada absorbs 6%,
> it's 4% in France and an astonishingly efficient 1.5% in Taiwan. What
> baffles me is why so many folks are apparently content paying an extra
> 20% for insurance that goes to executive salaries and marketing
> campaigns and so on while being horrified at the thought of the
> supposedly greater inefficiency govt. would bring to the process.

That's a good point, and one that the right wingers on this group
consistently ignore.

I also wonder how many of them rejected Social Security and Medicare, or
plan to when they reach that age?

Not to claim that the left is always logical :-).

If we all used reason, voted for the common good instead of self-
interest, and had the needed information, all laws, candidates, and
propositions would be approved or rejected almost unanimously.

But then we wouldn't be human :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Morris Dovey wrote:

>> Need I point out that that solution STILL leaves you paying for Joe -
>> just via a different path :-).
>
> There's a difference worth noting: you wouldn't only be paying for
> Joe's stitches, but also for all the clerical overhead needed for the
> government to process the medical and accounting information.
>
> Guess who pays /those/ bills....

Who pays for the 20% administrative overhead the insurance companies absorb
today? Health insurance administration in Canada absorbs 6%, it's 4% in
France and an astonishingly efficient 1.5% in Taiwan. What baffles me is
why so many folks are apparently content paying an extra 20% for insurance
that goes to executive salaries and marketing campaigns and so on while
being horrified at the thought of the supposedly greater inefficiency govt.
would bring to the process. The insurance companies have been getting away
with murder--refusing customers with pre-existing conditions, finding
excuses to drop customers who paid their premiums for years but now need
treatment, raising their rates far ahead of inflation, not to mention
absorbing a fifth of the money they take in for "administration." We're
being screwed six ways from Sunday *now* by the industry--are we just
supposed to bend over and smile forever, paying more than any other nation
on earth for health care while coming in 13th among wealthy nations in life
expectancy and infant mortality? My usual instinct is to suspect that govt.
can usually makes things worse, but when it comes to health care we need to
do something different, it can't go on like it is now because we simply
can't afford it.

"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in news:sZ-
[email protected]:

>
> "tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:8a071df6-d492-4339-befe-a10fcd5a8cb6@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Let the debate begin.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>
>> Forgive me. Which debate? Tom
>
>
> Jet vs. Delta
>
>
>

Spruce, Pine, Fir: Which is the superior material to support a Cherry
table top?

"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:cdea1dad-cd9f-4064-a6ff-e4ff468b4b09@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.
> ..
> On Sep 14, 12:03 am, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in news:sZ-
> > [email protected]:
> >
> >
> >
> > > "tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> >news:8a071df6-d492-4339-befe-a10fcd5a8cb6@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com
> >...
> > >> On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> Let the debate begin.
> >
> > >>> Lew
> >
> > >> Forgive me. Which debate? Tom
> >
> > > Jet vs. Delta
> >
> > Spruce, Pine, Fir: Which is the superior material to support a
> > Cherry table top?
>
>
> > Poplar or soft maple.
>
>
> Ginger or Maryanne
>

Parsley, Sage, Rosemary or Thyme?

"Jack Stein" wrote:

<snip a continuing litany of complaints as seen thru the eyes of one
afflicted with a severe case of analitis>

Perhaps some oral sex might help, but then again maybe just some
Ex-Lax.

Lew

Jack Stein wrote:
>
> Makes little difference if someone posts in one conference, or in a
> thousand conferences. All that matters is what he says in the group we
> are reading... What on earth does this nonsense have to do with
> anything, other than you have way too much time on your hands stocking
> what HeyBub does with his time. If you think for a second this makes
> anything he says here more, or less bullshit, you have a screw that
> needs tightening...
>
Especially when he probably doesn't read all of them, probably got
caught in a few crossposts in there somewhere.

--
Froz...

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:42:58 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> Joe Homeless walks into the emergency room to get four stitches and he
> gets them for free, while I walk into the same emergency room and get
> four stitches on the same table from the same doctor and get charged
> 2500 bucks.
>
> One step toward fixing the system would be a Constitutional amendment
> restricting unfunded mandates--if the government says that you _have_ to
> provide a good or service to someone who cannot reasonably be expected
> to pay for it then the government must compensate you for that good or
> service.

Need I point out that that solution STILL leaves you paying for Joe -
just via a different path :-).



--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:57:35 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Phisherman" wrote:
>
>> Stop the waste. If Medicare/Medicade have worked well, I might be
>> for
>> the proposed plan.
>
>You must have missed it.
>
>Stopping the "waste" in Medicare/Medicaid is one of the sources of
>funds to help pay for the new plan.
>
>BTW, Medicare works quite well, just ask those who have it.
>
>> Sure, for starters how about reducing the deficit?
>
>Unless health care costs are reduced, it will be a cold day in hell
>when the deficit gets reduced.
>

Bill Clinton did it. Doubtful Obama will.

On Sep 16, 8:01=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > "DGDevin" wrote:
>
> >> Since these are the same people who are convinced the govt. wants to
> >> set up death panels to decide when everyone will be allowed to die,
> >> and give away free health care to illegal aliens (the clear language
> >> of the bill notwithstanding) and for that matter that President
> >> Obama's birth certificate is a forgery, I'm not too concerned with
> >> what they believe. Anyone who shows up at a town hall meeting to
> >> screech that they don't want the govt. getting involved with their
> >> Medicare is frankly too dumb to be taken seriously. =A0It saddens me
> >> that the Republican Party has been reduced to appealing to the fears
> >> of ill-informed yahoos, but that's what it has come to.
>
> > Bottom line.....................................
>
> > It's "Whitey" based demagogy playing the race card.
>
> > Just look at who is playing the "Stop Obama" game.
>
> Yeah, just like the leftists who complained about Colin Powell's and Cond=
i
> Rice's support of the Iraq kerfluffel. Those who criticized were nothing =
but
> a bunch of dirt-bag racists who looked only at color of the proponents an=
d
> not at the merits of the plan.

Powell pulled his support as soon as he discovered he'd been lied to.
I tend to believe Rice had the hots for Georgie Boy...check out any
photo or video of thems tanding close together and watch her moon
eyeing him.

On Sep 14, 1:26=A0pm, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/14/2009 11:17 AM, Phisherman wrote:
>
> > I like the idea of hospitals charging $300 for all emergencies. =A0That
> > would help keep the hypocondriacs and flu patients from taking
> > resources from those that really need it. =A0I rushed a friend to a
> > hospital once, he had a burst appendix. =A0He passed out on the floor
> > while filling out page 4 of the 7 required pages to be admitted.
>
> The admitting nurse didn't recognize him as an urgent case? =A0Seems odd.
>
> Chris

The admitting 'clerk' maybe? Did it look like just another OD? Too
many unknowns to comment.

On 14 Sep 2009 00:07:01 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

> I really don't make much
>difference between the need for me and my family to have fire insurance
>and health insurance.

I don't believe congress is talking about forcing you or me to buy
fire insurance on pain of confiscatory fines. (local fire departments
don't equate to fire insurance, by the way)

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

On Sep 16, 12:05=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

>=A0Now, I can assure you this doctor would not have gotten TO
> the "government panel" to have this approved. =A0She might have spent
> several months trying to get ANY low level asswipe to even ANSWER the
> phone, and the denial would be immediate, and probably very
> condescending. =A0To get it to the government panel for approval would
> assuredly take months and probably a legal suit before anyone would
> bother looking at it. =A0By then, the wife would be blind as a bat.
>


Can you feel the hate?

On Sep 16, 9:08=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> CW wrote:
> > The last time I went to an ER, they told me that they couldn't see me u=
ntil
> > I filed out the paperwork. Then they complained that there was to much =
blood
> > on the paperwork to read it.
>
> If you think the government has any chance in hell of reducing the paper
> work, you are really delusional.

I think you are letting your ideology blind you to reality. Every
other government-run health care system in advanced countries has a
lot less paperwork than the US private health care system, hence the
much lower administrative costs.

Luigi

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Excellent retort. In sum, we spend more per capita than other countries
> BECAUSE WE CAN. Other countries spend less than we for a lot of reasons,
> chief among them is they don't have the wealth to do so.

Considering all the bankruptcies and wasteful spending practices that have
come to light lately in the US, one has to question if all that wealth is
really available to spend or has the US been using up much of its future
spending ability for some time.

"BECAUSE WE CAN" is a poor excuse for any country to pursue a bankrupt
future. Realistically, I'd fully expect the US as the world's only truly
functional superpower to take what it wants when the time comes that it
can't afford to buy what it wants. Simple survival really.

Mark & Juanita wrote:

> You do realize that if you don't like one health insurance company,
> you are perfectly free to find another, or to lobby your employer to
> change insurers -- if enough employees are having problems, your
> employer will most likely listen.

It is always amusing to see someone advise people to look elsewhere if they
don't like the way things are now. Where, pray tell, does one find a health
insurance company that doesn't care about pre-existing conditions? Where
does one find an insurance company that hasn't raised its rates far above
inflation in the past 15 years? Where does one go to find an insurance
company that doesn't have 20% administrative overhead?

> If you are denied, nothing stops
> you from fighting via the legal system or paying yourself -- that may
> lead to indebtedness, but if people are willing to go into debt to
> get that flat-screen TV or the newest car, you'd think something that
> will save their lives would be viewed as a good investment.

Here we go again, Joe and Mary Mainstreet are supposed to sue some giant
corporation with bottomless pockets. Yeah, good luck with that. Hey,
here's a radical idea, how about making it illegal for the insurance
companies to do slimy things like use flimsy excuses to drop customers when
they need treatment? Or does that sound too much like raging communism to
you?

> If you
> don't like the price, you can shop around -- you'd be surprised the
> prices you can get on medical if you pay without insurance -- you
> save a lot of paperwork for the doctors. Do you think those options
> would be available if the government runs health care? How many
> choices do you have for the motor vehicle department?

Please quote those portions of the current health care reform proposals that
would result in "the government runs health care."

And if you don't like the way the DMV works, why not sue the govt.--"
nothing stops you from fighting via the legal system."

> i.e, if you can't see the difference between the choices you have now
> and a federally mandated, unconstitutional, federally run health
> system, there is nothing more that can be discussed.

Since nobody appears to be proposing such a system your continued reference
to it is baffling.

> Did you know that survival rates from cancer are the highest in the
> United States compared to other countries, especially those with
> socialized medicine?

How about for the one-in-six Americans who lack health insurance, what's
their survival rate? The bright point in American health care is
catastrophic medicine like complicated surgery or drug treatment for
diseases like cancer. Unfortunately the other side of that coin is many
millions of Americans can't afford such treatment. Of course if you take
the view that's just their tough luck it makes that grim reality acceptable
(unless you're smart enough to realize that a tenth of *your* health
insurance premiums are used to cover the cost of treating the uninsured).

> That is a much better measure of health system
> success than life expectancy since that is driven strongly by
> genetics and thus demographics in some of those countries that are
> very homogeneous compared to the US. As far as infant mortality, you
> also have to examine the definitions that other nations use.

Oh, really--so places like Canada and Britain and France and so on have
homogeneous populations? It's hilarious to see various right-wing groups
currently making the claim that life expectancy and infant mortality are
unreliable indicators of how good a nation's health care is. The NCPPR
pushes that line--they're the guys who take contributions from Exxon-Mobil
and then miraculously decide that man-made climate change is a myth. Not to
mention their money-laundering for Jack Abramoff. Yeah, real persuasive
source.

> I'd feel a whole lot better if the government were doing a bang-up
> job on the health care programs it already runs. VA? Medicare?
> Indian Health Service? Not exactly glowing testimonials. But if we
> give them the whole sector, they'll make it work. Yeah, I'm
> convinced.

VA health care has cleaned up its act in recent years, they're doing a hell
of a lot better job than they did back in the 70s and 80s. They even
negotiated lower prices with the drug companies, something the last
Republican-controlled Congress prohibited Medicare from doing. Besides, you
continue to refer to a total takeover of health care by the govt. when
nothing in the proposed legislation mandates that; how about keeping the
discussion on this planet rather than inventing creeping-socialism horror
stories?

Charlie Self wrote:
> On Sep 16, 8:01 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> "DGDevin" wrote:
>>
>>>> Since these are the same people who are convinced the govt. wants
>>>> to set up death panels to decide when everyone will be allowed to
>>>> die, and give away free health care to illegal aliens (the clear
>>>> language of the bill notwithstanding) and for that matter that
>>>> President Obama's birth certificate is a forgery, I'm not too
>>>> concerned with what they believe. Anyone who shows up at a town
>>>> hall meeting to screech that they don't want the govt. getting
>>>> involved with their Medicare is frankly too dumb to be taken
>>>> seriously. It saddens me that the Republican Party has been
>>>> reduced to appealing to the fears of ill-informed yahoos, but
>>>> that's what it has come to.
>>
>>> Bottom line.....................................
>>
>>> It's "Whitey" based demagogy playing the race card.
>>
>>> Just look at who is playing the "Stop Obama" game.
>>
>> Yeah, just like the leftists who complained about Colin Powell's and
>> Condi Rice's support of the Iraq kerfluffel. Those who criticized
>> were nothing but a bunch of dirt-bag racists who looked only at
>> color of the proponents and not at the merits of the plan.
>
> Powell pulled his support as soon as he discovered he'd been lied to.
> I tend to believe Rice had the hots for Georgie Boy...check out any
> photo or video of thems tanding close together and watch her moon
> eyeing him.

Another alternate-universe person

"I'm well aware of the role I played. My role has been very, very
straightforward. I wanted to avoid a war. The president agreed with me. We
tried to do that. We couldn't get it through the U.N. and when the president
made the decision, I supported that decision. And I've never blinked from
that. I've never said I didn't support a decision to go to war." Colin
Powell, interview with CNN, Oct 19, 2008.

As for Condi Rice and George Bush, at least Laura didn't have to intercede,
as did Michelle Obama recently when some blonde kept rubbing up against her
husband. I believe her exact words were: "Chris Matthews! Back off!"

Lew Hodgett wrote:

>
> "Jack Stein" wrote:
>
>> What does owning private property have to do with SOCIALISM?
>
> More to the point, what does universal health care have to do with
> SOCIALISM?
>
> Lew

Are you sure you really want to ask the question of how the government
taking over 1/7 of the US economy equates to socialism -- the control of
enterprise by the government? Or ask how having one citizen pay for
another's health insurance is socialism? You really don't see how that is
socialist?


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:05:10 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:
>
>> 80-85% of the country is happy with their
>> health care as it is, ...
>>
>
> Considering that all the polls show the elctorate to be pretty evenly
> divided on Obama's plan, I have great difficulty believing your numbers.
>

ummm, you might want to check *your* numbers. Latest Rasmussen poll has
opposition at 55% compared to 42% support for Obamacare. Other polls show
similar results, even after heavily weighting democrat to republican in the
sample bases. Worse for your argument, 44% strongly oppose the plan while
only 23% strongly support it.

<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform>


>>
>> The dumb ones are those like you that think this is a
>> Democrat/Republican issue. It is an American/Amerikan issue. A
>> Socialist/Capitalist issue. An Individual control/Government control
>> issue.
>>
>
> I've been reading a biography of Thomas Jefferson. When he was helping
> set up the state of Virginia, he proposed that all free men who did not
> own land, or who owned less than 50 acres, be given enough government
> land to make up the 50 acres. Omigod, SOCIALISM way back then!
>

OK, how does transferring land that the government was holding to private
individuals equate to socialism? Seems like that is shrinking government
and government control of property and transferring it to private hands,
the exact opposite of socialism. The government did not take that land from
someone else to give it to another.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Lew Hodgett wrote:

>
> "DGDevin" wrote:
>
>> Since these are the same people who are convinced the govt. wants to
>> set up death panels to decide when everyone will be allowed to die,
>> and give away free health care to illegal aliens (the clear language
>> of the bill notwithstanding) and for that matter that President
>> Obama's birth certificate is a forgery, I'm not too concerned with
>> what they believe. Anyone who shows up at a town hall meeting to
>> screech that they don't want the govt. getting involved with their
>> Medicare is frankly too dumb to be taken seriously. It saddens me
>> that the Republican Party has been reduced to appealing to the fears
>> of ill-informed yahoos, but that's what it has come to.
>
> Bottom line.....................................
>
> It's "Whitey" based demagogy playing the race card.
>
> Just look at who is playing the "Stop Obama" game.
>
> Lew

Yeah, there was that racist conservative in St Louis that the SEIU
enforcers gave what-for during one of those racist demonstrations. They
really showed Ken Gladney that they don't take racism lightly.

Oh, wait -- Ken Gladney is black.

But then there is that racist nut in Phoenix who showed up with an AK
rifle over his shoulder (totally legal in the state, but everyone knows
that was intended to be racially intimidating).

Oh, wait, that guy was black also.


That race card ain't working any more, it's been played too many times.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Phisherman wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:05:10 -0500, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>DGDevin wrote:
>>> Jack Stein wrote:
>>>> "Rampaging socialism" is easy to
>>>> recognize, no need to convince anyone with half a brain... it is what
... snip
>
>
> Jack, sorry to hear about your wife. She is very lucky to have a
> responsive emergency room. They are not all alike.
>
> It is very sad folks are turning this into a party or race thing.

You are exactly right. The protests in D.C. Saturday were truly
bi-partisan, people who went were Republican, Democrat, and Independent --
they all gathered because of the concern that this massive expansion of
government power over individual lives will cause.


For those of you who only get the three-letter news stations and/or the
NYT -- approximately 800k to 1.2M people showed up in D.C. on Saturday to
show their opposition to the health care bills in Congress. Apparently the
three-letter news organizations were too busy with other stuff to cover
this to any great extent.


> The
> more Obama pushes health care, the more people dislike it. Go Obama!

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Lew Hodgett wrote:

> Let the debate begin.
>
> Lew

What's puzzling is why he waited all summer, why he let the baboons (and
their handlers) tear up the place. Now many people have been scared
spitless and the spineless clowns in Congress (whose first priority is
always re-election) are afraid to go toe-to-toe with the various industry
lobbies that want things to stay just as they are. Considering what a tight
ship they ran during the campaign it's surprising that the administration
has let this get as out of control as it has.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:32:04 -0700, "DGDevin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Phisherman wrote:
>
>> I'm an extreme Libertarian and it is my guess no Libertarian will
>> support Obama's Health care plan. It is financially irresponsible.
>> Government, please get out of my face!!!
>
>So how do you feel about various industries including the health insurance
>industry being in your face? They keep raising the cost of health insurance


I dont need a president, a cigarette smoker himself, telling me what
kind of insurance I need. Stopping smoking is an excellent way to
prevent disease and reduce health costs.

"Phisherman" wrote:

> Stop the waste. If Medicare/Medicade have worked well, I might be
> for
> the proposed plan.

You must have missed it.

Stopping the "waste" in Medicare/Medicaid is one of the sources of
funds to help pay for the new plan.

BTW, Medicare works quite well, just ask those who have it.

> Sure, for starters how about reducing the deficit?

Unless health care costs are reduced, it will be a cold day in hell
when the deficit gets reduced.

BTW, you missed my earlier questions:
--------------------------------------------------------
Not to be a wise ass, but how many Libertarian members of congress are
there?

How is it financially irresponsible?
------------------------------------------------------

Lew

On Sep 24, 12:09=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > He sounds like the guys around here who write in to the papers
> > insisting that the feds should have left the car business to the car
> > guys and the banks to the bankers.
>
> Yes, thats how it works in a capitalist society.
>
> > Given cost and all else, I'll take my VA medical care over my wife's
> > civilian care any day.
>
> Your wife must have some really nasty medical care. =A0I guess it might b=
e
> a regional thing, but in Pittsburgh, the last hospital anyone wants to
> go to is the VA.
>
> > And I do love people who say things like ...Americans are happy with
> > what they have..." which is obvious bullshit to describe a system that
> > is a mess and getting worse.
>
> Thats why so many Americans run to Canada and England for medical care,
> right?
>
> --
> Jack
> Using FREE News Server:http://www.eternal-september.org/http://jbstein.co=
m

Another note: Frances's health care wasn't nasty, it was just
borderline competent and very, very costly. We finally had to push for
her GP to recommend she go upstate to UVa Medical Center, which ain't
cheap either.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Jack Stein" wrote:
>
> <snip a continuing litany of complaints as seen thru the eyes of one
> afflicted with a severe case of analitis>
>
> Perhaps some oral sex might help, but then again maybe just some
> Ex-Lax.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
>

Lew -

No matter how many times you offer, most of us are not interested.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:e178e420-f122-4634-af78-cddde04d4acf@o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 14, 12:06 am, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 9:03 pm, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in news:sZ-
> > [email protected]:
>
> > > "tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:8a071df6-d492-4339-befe-a10fcd5a8cb6@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > >> On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>> Let the debate begin.
>
> > >>> Lew
>
> > >> Forgive me. Which debate? Tom
>
> > > Jet vs. Delta
>
> > Spruce, Pine, Fir: Which is the superior material to support a Cherry
> > table top?
>
> Metric vs Imperial?

Smooth vs Crunchy?


rec.woodworking or alt.politics.usa.misc?

"DGDevin" <[email protected]> writes:
>J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> One of the big problems is that the insurance companies are being
>> forced to cover the uninsured. How does that happen you ask? Well,
>> hospitals are required by law to give at least a minimal standard of
>> treatment to anyone who walks into the emergency room, without regard
>> to means. The laws that require them to do this do not provide any
>> means of compensating them for the costs incurred. Even nonprofit
>> hospitals have to recover costs somehow or they run out of money and
>> can't pay their bills. Thus the means they use to recover costs is
>> to set their rates so that anyone _with_ insurance gets surcharged to
>> cover the uninsured.
>
>Yup, 8 to 10% of what we pay for insurance is shifted to cover the costs of

You need to document that number; How was it derived?

while a full 25% is pure insurance overhead, to wit (From UHC 2008 10-K)

Revenue (premiums): USD 81 Billion
Payments (medical care): USD 60 Billion
Insurance Company Costs: USD 15 Billion
Insurance Company Profit: USD 5 Billion.

25% overhead is entirely too much. Need to get rid of the insurance companies
entirely to save any money in health care. Add in the savings in the
hospitals, doctor's, etc. due to less paperwork, and you end up cutting 50% or
more from the costs of medical treatment.

Perpetual HSA's for individuals with competetive catastrophic coverage
from multiple vendors would go a long way towards reducing medical costs.

scott

On Sep 14, 7:35=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > DGDevin wrote:
>
> >> Phisherman wrote:
>
> >>> I'm an extreme Libertarian and it is my guess no Libertarian will
> >>> support Obama's Health care plan. =A0It is financially irresponsible.
> >>> Government, please get out of my face!!!
>
> >> So how do you feel about various industries including the health
> >> insurance industry being in your face? =A0They keep raising the cost
> >> of health insurance
> >> while finding ways to deny coverage to those who need it.
>
> > =A0You do realize that if you don't like one health insurance company,
> > you are perfectly free to find another, or to lobby your employer to
> > change insurers -- if enough employees are having problems, your
> > employer will most likely listen. =A0If you are denied, nothing stops
> > you from fighting via the legal system or paying yourself -- that may
> > lead to indebtedness, but if people are willing to go into debt to
> > get that flat-screen TV or the newest car, you'd think something that
> > will save their lives would be viewed as a good investment. =A0If you
> > don't like the price, you can shop around -- you'd be surprised the
> > prices you can get on medical if you pay without insurance -- you
> > save a lot of paperwork for the doctors. =A0Do you think those options
> > would be available if the government runs health care? How many
> > choices do you have for the motor vehicle department?
>
> > i.e, if you can't see the difference between the choices you have now
> > and a federally mandated, unconstitutional, federally run health
> > system, there is nothing more that can be discussed.
>
> >> They manage to
> >> consume 20% of the money they take in for administrative overhead, at
> >> least
> >> several times what it costs in other industrialized nations.
> >> Competition is supposed to drive down prices for consumers, yet the
> >> health insurance industry has achieved the exact opposite. =A0Did you
> >> know the health care industry shifts about a tenth of what you pay
> >> for health insurance to cover
> >> their costs in treating uninsured patients? =A0Did you know that
> >> despite spending the most on health care of the 13 wealthiest
> >> nations that life expectancy in America is the lowest of those 13
> >> nations, while infant mortality is the highest?
>
> > =A0Did you know that survival rates from cancer are the highest in the
> > United States compared to other countries, especially those with
> > socialized medicine? =A0That is a much better measure of health system
> > success than life expectancy since that is driven strongly by
> > genetics and thus demographics in some of those countries that are
> > very homogeneous compared to the US. As far as infant mortality, you
> > also have to examine the definitions that other nations use.
>
> >> So who, other than the govt., is supposed to do
> >> something about this?
>
> > =A0I'd feel a whole lot better if the government were doing a bang-up
> > job on the health care programs it already runs. =A0VA? =A0Medicare?
> > Indian Health Service? =A0Not exactly glowing testimonials. =A0But if w=
e
> > give them the whole sector, they'll make it work. =A0Yeah, I'm
> > convinced.
>
> Excellent retort. In sum, we spend more per capita than other countries
> BECAUSE WE CAN. Other countries spend less than we for a lot of reasons,
> chief among them is they don't have the wealth to do so.
>
> A consequence of this deficiency is lowered expectations. Here in the U.S=
.,
> I EXPECT a tooth extraction to involve anesthesia - not so in Britain. He=
re
> I EXPECT an MRI, and possibly surgery, for a torn knee ligament within a =
few
> days* - it's months in other industrialized countries.
>
> ----------
> * In some, admittedly rare, cases, the MRI diagnosis takes place within
> MINUTES of the injury (think professional football). The entire concept o=
f a
> portable MRI machine in the locker room, or just down the street, of a
> British soccer stadium is so patently absurd as to be laughable.

I will leave you to your illusions and lies while I continue to live a
longer and healthier life without fear of not being able to afford
health care, and while my compatriots get jobs that move out from the
States because employers also can't afford health care.

Luigi

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote :
: Well, like him or not, he can get people fired up. That's how ministers and
: politicians have made their mark, good or bad, for centuries. It does not
: have to be good information, just good speech
:
Hitler had those very same qualities and we know how that ended up.
Any time the general population loses, or chooses not to use, the ability
of critical thinking and healthy skepticism then that society is easy plucking
for wackos of all flavors.
Art

On Sep 14, 10:17=A0am, Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I like the idea of hospitals charging $300 for all emergencies. =A0That
> would help keep the hypocondriacs and flu patients from taking
> resources from those that really need it. =A0I rushed a friend to a
> hospital once, he had a burst appendix. =A0He passed out on the floor
> while filling out page 4 of the 7 required pages to be admitted.
> Hospitals will work with those without money--you can pay whatever you
> can per month until paid up.

In Canada, your friend would have been whisked inside to be treated
immediately and you would have been asked questions by a clerk who
filled out a couple of pages form. The clerk would probably also have
asked you to go get your friend's medicare card. A nurse would
immediately have asked your friend a bunch of questions, but related
to his condition and previous medical experiences. A flu patient would
be immediately isolated from the others.

Your hypochondriac would be made to wait, and wait and wait. And then
they would bitch about the Canadian health system because their
obviously non-urgent condition was not treated immediately. Then they
would have mortgaged their house to get their pimple operated on in
the USA and appeared in ads for the Republicans about how bad the
Canadian system is.

Luigi

Robatoy wrote:
>
> Capitalism is not inherently evil. It is healthy.
> To make a better bandage than the next guy, will eventually make you
> more money than that next guy. To charge $ 9000.00 for it when
> somebody is bleeding to death is wrong.

Why? Clot-busting drugs cost almost that much. The alternative may very well
be no drug.

> To deny that person a bandage
> because he's bled before, is wrong.

If you're talking about pre-existing conditions, the obvious abuse is a
game-changer.

Doctor: "You need a heart-valve replacement. It'll cost about $100,000."
Patient: "I guess I better get some insurance."

There's also a bastardization of words here. NO ONE is denied insurance
because of pre-existing conditions! They are merely denied CHEAP insurance
due to pre-existing conditions. The underwriters at Lloyds would be glad to
provide insurance in my example above (at a cost of, oh, $200,000/year).

> To charge $ 100.00 per gallon for
> fuel for the ambulance, because it is 'needed'..is wrong.

It costs what it costs. The alternative to not paying the market price is
for the ambulance to sit somewhere with an empty tank. Think back to the
Carter years when there were price controls on gasoline. Some vehicles HAD
to sit with empty tanks, even though the owners might have been willing to
pay $100/gallon.

I was a Deputy Sheriff during that time and we had to curtail routine
patrols due to lack of fuel. Fortunately, the goblins couldn't drive to the
Stop-N-Rob to do their crime and the car thieves couldn't drive the stolen
car away, so that example was pretty much of a wash.

> As the population of country is in charge of electing the next boss,
> they have to make sure that new boss doesn't get an advantage in the
> electoral process, because that bandage maker gives him more money.
> Special interests have corrupted the democratic process. Under that
> umbrella, the line between capitalism and corrupt capitalism becomes
> blurred.

Special interests are the counter-point to the mob. The great unwashed have
an emotional point of view; the special interests have an informed point of
view. Sometimes the mob wins, sometimes the special interests win. It
averages out. But I'll agree that the government should quit trying to
handicap elections (i.e., campaign finance limits, same-day voter
registration, etc.).

> It's ok to make money, but that 'free enterprise' system doesn't give
> anybody the right to extort.

Yes it does. Extortion is guaranteed by our Constitution.

"The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and
useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Inventions." [Article I,
Section 8]

Consider my clot-busting drug above. Suppose it costs Pharma $340,000,000 to
develop the drug and the company projects it could sell 10,000 doses per
year. A patent is good for 17 years, so the company has to net $2,000 per
dose over the life of the patent just to recoup their development costs.
Then, too, there are the on-going costs to manufacture, advertise,
administer, and deliver the drug. Plus, there is no guarantee that the drug
won't be superseded next month by a competitor. I would think the drug
company would have to price its medicine at, oh, $5000 per dose to
reasonably guarantee an eventual profit. There are a lot of unknowns; for
example, they may sell ten times the projected number (or one-tenth). That's
where their expertise comes into play. Their estimate of 10,000 units per
year is certainly more informed than the mob screaming "fair is $100 per
dose, $1,000 is extortion!"

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:03:04 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:32:04 -0400, the infamous "Ed Pawlowski"
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>
> You're responding to a post from Sept 13th? Six weeks ago? And I
> thought I was slowing down :-).
>
He's a slow reader and a fast thinker.

--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA

After all is said and done, usually
more is said than done.

Jack Stein wrote:
>
> Yes, well currently Medicare is underfunded by how many trillions of
> dollars? Now, add in the rest of the country and you don't need much
> imagination to see that the 80-85% that are happy with their current
> care will soon be getting screwed as the government is FORCED to reign
> in costs. This is a given, not much thought needed to see it won't
> work, and doesn't work any where else. True, some work may need done
> on the 15-20% that are not happy, but I can tell you that before
> Clinton fucked with Medicaid, most likely with the goal of screwing
> the poor folk so they would support full socialized medicine,
> everyone was covered in the US.

I predict: The government will NOT reign in costs significantly. The
government will INCREASE what workers pay into Medicare.

>
> For anyone following this, here is what she did... She was doing a
> load of laundry and had the lid up on the washer. She picked up a
> gallon of bleach in a plastic container and it slipped out of her
> hand, and hit the side of the washer, squirting out a huge amount of
> bleach directly in her eyes. The bleach burnt the top layer of her
> eyes right off, more in one than the other, but it was really, really
> painful, and really really dangerous. She was very lucky.



She placed a tremendous load on the health-care delivery system when a very
simple government requirment of eye-wash fountains in every household would
have not only saved her the pain and inconvenience, but would have held down
health-care costs.

On Sep 21, 4:32=A0pm, FrozenNorth <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Jack Stein wrote:
> > Upscale wrote:
> >> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> manage to change our system to one like yours the bad news is then ou=
r
> >>> system will suck as bad as yours, but the good news is, you will not =
be
> >>> able to get any better treatment here than you do in Canada.
>
> >> I happen to like our medical system. And believe me, I use it so I kno=
w
> >> about it. Obviously, you thinking it sucks means that you're opinion i=
s
> >> based solely on hearsay without any practical experience.
>
> > Yes, I've heard lots about it, long waits to MRI's, higher death rates
> > from all sorts of things. =A0
>
> Not sure about Upscale's experiences, but I needed an MRI once, took
> less that 12 hours in Canada (Toronto area). =A0Exceptional service I
> don't know. =A0 As to the death rates, there are studies that go both way=
s.
>
> > Add to that my first and second hand
> > experiences with government fucking up every thing they touch and
> > it doesn't take much thought to see why Americans are happy with what
> > they have rather than getting what you have.
>
> Government fucking things up? =A0Want to looks at banks or Enron, the
> government doesn't have an exclusive right to make a mess of things. =A0I
> submit any big institution can make a mess of things.
>
> --
> Froz...

He sounds like the guys around here who write in to the papers
insisting that the feds should have left the car business to the car
guys and the banks to the bankers.

Given cost and all else, I'll take my VA medical care over my wife's
civilian care any day.

And I do love people who say things like ...Americans are happy with
what they have..." which is obvious bullshit to describe a system that
is a mess and getting worse.

On Sep 17, 12:03=A0pm, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:35:03 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > =A0Seems like that is shrinking government
> > and government control of property and transferring it to private hands=
,
> > the exact opposite of socialism. The government did not take that land
> > from someone else to give it to another.
>
> Tell that to the Indians :-).
>

Who took it from a group preceding them. None of us popped up here
owning the land.

"Han" wrote:

> I think you know, Lew, that there are some Democrats who are a lot
> farther to the right than some Republicans.

That's why Obama chose a guy from Chicago to be chief of staff<G>.

> And yet, basic health insurance cannot be paid for
> by some kind of involuntary contributions?

Just another red herring from the AM radio crowd.

> Now, I think that left is fine, but needs to be financially
> responsible.

That position has a lot of support including Obama.

> Like getting some real oversight over those bankers.

Based on what I'm hearing, they are still running amuck.

Lew

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>> "Phisherman" wrote:
>>
>>> Stop the waste. If Medicare/Medicade have worked well, I might be
>>> for
>>> the proposed plan.
>>
>> You must have missed it.
>>
>> Stopping the "waste" in Medicare/Medicaid is one of the sources of
>> funds to help pay for the new plan.
>
> There's a great argument and recommendation. What is preventing them
from
> stopping the waste now? Why should this takeover of 1/6 of the US
economy
> have to happen first before waste in Medicare happening now is stopped?
> Since Medicare is a government program, why is it that this magical new
> program is going to be any less subject to fraud and waste than the
> government system already being poorly managed?
>
>
> Bottom line, the only way they are going to make this save money is by
> rationing health care. Somebody is going to decide what treatments are
> given and to whom and who gets to "take the pain pill". After all,
> someone's spirit and love of life is too subjective to judge, their age
> [and political status] is purely objective.
>
If we do that, where would the Canadians go when they get sick?

On Sep 16, 10:17=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
> > That fucking corporate greed will be the death of all us....
>
> Greed is good.
>
> One great worthy (I think the Ramban) said long ago: "If not for greed, n=
o
> man would marry, build a house, or father a child."
>
> Another great worthy (Gordon Gekko) said: "The point is, ladies and
> gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right=
,
> greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of t=
he
> evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for mone=
y,
> for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, yo=
u
> mark my words, will not only save [us], but that other malfunctioning
> corporation called the USA."

To accumulate wealth by ambition and drive is one thing.
To accumulate wealth by extortion, such as Insurance Companies, Oil
Companies, Banks, IRS borders on the criminal.

"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Yes, I've heard lots about it, long waits to MRI's, higher death rates
> from all sorts of things.

Yes, you've heard second, third and fourth hand, but know shit. Let me
introduce you to Tim Daneliuk.

Your responses and replies are the frothing at the mouth version his
mindset. Just like him, you excel in whining and complaining about
government taking you to the poor house. That's what happens to people like
you. Enjoy!

On Sep 17, 11:17=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped]

So."Give me your house and all your assets or you will die" is
appropriate 'free enterprise'?

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:cdea1dad-cd9f-4064-a6ff-e4ff468b4b09@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 14, 12:03 am, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in news:sZ-
> [email protected]:
>
>
>
> > "tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>news:8a071df6-d492-4339-befe-a10fcd5a8cb6@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Let the debate begin.
>
> >>> Lew
>
> >> Forgive me. Which debate? Tom
>
> > Jet vs. Delta
>
> Spruce, Pine, Fir: Which is the superior material to support a Cherry
> table top?


> Poplar or soft maple.


Ginger or Maryanne

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:35:03 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> Seems like that is shrinking government
>> and government control of property and transferring it to private hands,
>> the exact opposite of socialism. The government did not take that land
>> from someone else to give it to another.
>
> Tell that to the Indians :-).
>

Worcester vs. Georgia (1832)

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:36:05 -0700 (PDT), tom <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Let the debate begin.
>>
>> Lew
>
>Forgive me. Which debate? Tom

Stain or paint on cherry.

--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> manage to change our system to one like yours the bad news is then our
> system will suck as bad as yours, but the good news is, you will not be
> able to get any better treatment here than you do in Canada.

I happen to like our medical system. And believe me, I use it so I know
about it. Obviously, you thinking it sucks means that you're opinion is
based solely on hearsay without any practical experience. Not surprisingly,
you're opinion is popular among most of the people in the US who happen to
like your system. And just as obviously, that opinion is carried by those
who can afford your system. It most certainly isn't 85% if the population,
not even close to it.

"FrozenNorth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Government fucking things up? Want to looks at banks or Enron, the
> government doesn't have an exclusive right to make a mess of things. I
> submit any big institution can make a mess of things.

Which is backed up by the fact that they already have. Jack can rail all he
wants about what he perceives to be deficiencies in some Canadian system,
but no where, no time in world history has there been bigger financial
screws ups than what has happened during the last year or so in the US.

Deal with it Jack. You live in a country that largely precipitated the worst
of the worst ever in money matter fiascos.

On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let the debate begin.
>
> Lew

Forgive me. Which debate? Tom

On Sep 13, 6:59=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "DGDevin" wrote:
> > What's puzzling is why he waited all summer, why he let the baboons
> > (and their handlers) tear up the place. =A0Now many people have been
> > scared spitless and the spineless clowns in Congress (whose first
> > priority is always re-election) are afraid to go toe-to-toe with the
> > various industry lobbies that want things to stay just as they are.
> > Considering what a tight ship they ran during the campaign it's
> > surprising that the administration has let this get as out of
> > control as it has.
>
> There will be no Republican support for an Obama plan.
>
> There was an election last November, the people spoke, so get on with
> the job.
>
> With majorities in both the house and the senate, why are the Dems
> interested in bipartisan support?
>
> Must be some reason.
>

In case the whole shits the bed. Then they have somebody to share the
blame.

Jack Stein wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> manage to change our system to one like yours the bad news is then our
>>> system will suck as bad as yours, but the good news is, you will not be
>>> able to get any better treatment here than you do in Canada.
>
>> I happen to like our medical system. And believe me, I use it so I know
>> about it. Obviously, you thinking it sucks means that you're opinion is
>> based solely on hearsay without any practical experience.
>
> Yes, I've heard lots about it, long waits to MRI's, higher death rates
> from all sorts of things.

Not sure about Upscale's experiences, but I needed an MRI once, took
less that 12 hours in Canada (Toronto area). Exceptional service I
don't know. As to the death rates, there are studies that go both ways.

> Add to that my first and second hand
> experiences with government fucking up every thing they touch and
> it doesn't take much thought to see why Americans are happy with what
> they have rather than getting what you have.
>
Government fucking things up? Want to looks at banks or Enron, the
government doesn't have an exclusive right to make a mess of things. I
submit any big institution can make a mess of things.

--
Froz...

On Sep 17, 10:08=A0am, Steve Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
> > Robatoy wrote:
> >>> Greed is good.
>
> >>> One great worthy (I think the Ramban) said long ago: "If not for
> >>> greed, no man would marry, build a house, or father a child."
>
> >>> Another great worthy (Gordon Gekko) said: "The point is, ladies and
> >>> gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is
> >>> right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the
> >>> essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms;
> >>> greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward
> >>> surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save
> >>> [us], but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."
> >> To accumulate wealth by ambition and drive is one thing.
> >> To accumulate wealth by extortion, such as Insurance Companies, Oil
> >> Companies, Banks, IRS borders on the criminal.
>
> > Absolutely! But it's not the greed that is bad - it is the method of
> > pursuing it or the results to which it's put that causes the harm.
>
> It's kinda like the "people use guns to kill other people, so let's outla=
w the guns"
> argument. =A0People are able to use capitalism as a tool to commit evil, =
so capitalism must be
> inherently evil. =A0I hear that's Michael Moore's latest diatribe...
>

Capitalism is not inherently evil. It is healthy.
To make a better bandage than the next guy, will eventually make you
more money than that next guy. To charge $ 9000.00 for it when
somebody is bleeding to death is wrong. To deny that person a bandage
because he's bled before, is wrong. To charge $ 100.00 per gallon for
fuel for the ambulance, because it is 'needed'..is wrong.
As the population of country is in charge of electing the next boss,
they have to make sure that new boss doesn't get an advantage in the
electoral process, because that bandage maker gives him more money.
Special interests have corrupted the democratic process. Under that
umbrella, the line between capitalism and corrupt capitalism becomes
blurred.
It's ok to make money, but that 'free enterprise' system doesn't give
anybody the right to extort.
There have to be limits when essential care and services are at play.
A guy who is trying to feed his kids WILL sign up for that 30% loan.

Too many people are forgetting who is working for who.

And, no... just because a guy gets drunk, drives a Honda, kills a
pedestrian, doesn't make Honda an evil company.

Oh... and that Michael Moore film on capitalism? That's just Michael
Moore making money off the gullible. The irony.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

> BTW, Medicare works quite well, just ask those who have it.

Actually it's a time bomb that will get more powerful as the years pass.
The big secret about Medicare that everyone in Washington already knows is
that it represents many trillions of dollars of unfunded liability. The
current federal deficit is child's play in comparison to what is coming.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>
> OK, how does transferring land that the government was holding to
> private individuals equate to socialism? Seems like that is
> shrinking government and government control of property and
> transferring it to private hands, the exact opposite of socialism.
> The government did not take that land from someone else to give it to
> another.

It's not "socialism," it's tyranny when the government uses imminent doman
to obtain the land in the first place so they can sell it to another private
person or corporation.

On Sep 13, 1:50=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > Let the debate begin.
>
> > Lew
>
> What's puzzling is why he waited all summer, why he let the baboons (and
> their handlers) tear up the place. =A0Now many people have been scared
> spitless and the spineless clowns in Congress (whose first priority is
> always re-election) are afraid to go toe-to-toe with the various industry
> lobbies that want things to stay just as they are. =A0Considering what a =
tight
> ship they ran during the campaign it's surprising that the administration
> has let this get as out of control as it has.

None of that precludes the fact that The Detroit Lions will suck again
this year.

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:40:45 -0400, the infamous Phisherman
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>Sure, for starters how about reducing the deficit? Balance the
>budget? Stop printing money? Following the Constitution? Lots of
>things can be done without spending our children's money.

"Children's", Hell! They've already dug us deep enough to pass the
debt down to our great, great, great, great grandchildren now,
_before_ the Great Health Debacle.

--
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free
than Christianity has made them good." --H. L. Mencken
---

J. Clarke wrote:

> One of the big problems is that the insurance companies are being
> forced to cover the uninsured. How does that happen you ask? Well,
> hospitals are required by law to give at least a minimal standard of
> treatment to anyone who walks into the emergency room, without regard
> to means. The laws that require them to do this do not provide any
> means of compensating them for the costs incurred. Even nonprofit
> hospitals have to recover costs somehow or they run out of money and
> can't pay their bills. Thus the means they use to recover costs is
> to set their rates so that anyone _with_ insurance gets surcharged to
> cover the uninsured.

Yup, 8 to 10% of what we pay for insurance is shifted to cover the costs of
treating uninsured patients (and that's aside from govt. funding used for
the same purpose). Folks who don't want their taxes paying for treating the
uninsured have missed the little detail that their insurance premiums are
doing exactly that right now. Why would anyone be surprised that a
corporation seeking profit would pass on an expense like this to their
insured customers, did anyone seriously believe they would just eat this
expense?

> One step toward fixing the system would be a Constitutional amendment
> restricting unfunded mandates--if the government says that you _have_
> to provide a good or service to someone who cannot reasonably be
> expected to pay for it then the government must compensate you for
> that good or service.

And where will the govt. get the money? Perhaps from the taxes we pay? It
doesn't matter which pocket the money comes from, it's all the same pair of
pants. So if we're going to pay I'd like to the bill to be as small as
possible. That means keeping people out of the emergency room, i.e.
providing them with less expensive preventative care rather than having them
stumble into the ER when they have no other choice.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>
> For those of you who only get the three-letter news stations and/or
> the NYT -- approximately 800k to 1.2M people showed up in D.C. on
> Saturday to show their opposition to the health care bills in
> Congress. Apparently the three-letter news organizations were too
> busy with other stuff to cover this to any great extent.
>
>

They had most of their staffs digging into the ACORN business.

No, wait...

Jack Stein wrote:
----------------------------------------------------
> If you think the government has any chance in hell of reducing the
> paper
> work, you are really delusional.
--------------------------------------------------

"Luigi Zanasi" wrote:
===================================
I think you are letting your ideology blind you to reality. Every
other government-run health care system in advanced countries has a
lot less paperwork than the US private health care system, hence the
much lower administrative costs.
====================================

SFWIW:

Kaiser is running TV spots announcing that they are now paperless and
listing it's many benefits.

Lew

Robatoy wrote:
> On Sep 17, 11:17 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snipped]
>
> So."Give me your house and all your assets or you will die" is
> appropriate 'free enterprise'?

Well, yeah. Nobody is FORCING you like they are with increased taxes to pay
for somebody else's stuff.

It's your choice.

Besides, if alive, you can always accumulate more assets and another house.
Possibly by going into the health-care business.

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Speaking of wildly successful government programs, what's the status of
> the Big Dig? Anywhere close to done?
>
>

Pretty much done. They are repairing the parts falling down now.

The drive to the airport is a hell of a lot better though, as long as
nothing falls and kills you along the way. A lot of contractors made a lot
of money from that project.

On 09/14/2009 10:09 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:

> There's a difference worth noting: you wouldn't only be paying for Joe's
> stitches, but also for all the clerical overhead needed for the
> government to process the medical and accounting information.
>
> Guess who pays /those/ bills....

Presumably there's already hospital paperwork to cover treatment of
uninsured individuals, so the only additional effort would be to send
the claim to the government.

I assume that the hospital would submit it as an electronic claim and
unless it was exceptional in some way it would be handled automatically.
It seems unlikely that they would have actual people handling most of
that stuff.

Chris

Chris Friesen wrote:

>> i.e, if you can't see the difference between the choices you have
>> now and a federally mandated, unconstitutional, federally run health
>> system, there is nothing more that can be discussed.
>
> I didn't think that this was actually in the proposed bill.
>
> Chris

It isn't, but those people who have been gnashing their teeth and tearing
their hair ever since last fall's Presidential election like to pretend it
is. Death Panelists would be a good name for the members of this particular
cult, sufferers of Obama Derangement Syndrome (among other things).

Phisherman wrote:

>>> I'm an extreme Libertarian and it is my guess no Libertarian will
>>> support Obama's Health care plan. It is financially irresponsible.
>>> Government, please get out of my face!!!
>>
>> So how do you feel about various industries including the health
>> insurance industry being in your face? They keep raising the cost
>> of health insurance
>
>
> I dont need a president, a cigarette smoker himself, telling me what
> kind of insurance I need. Stopping smoking is an excellent way to
> prevent disease and reduce health costs.

But apparently you do need insurance companies that can drop your coverage
when you get sick on whatever flimsy excuse they can cook up. It is nothing
short of astonishing that so many people don't want govt. bureaucrats in
charge of their health care but are blissfully happy to have corporate
bureaucrats in charge of their health care despite the steadily rising costs
and lower standards of care those corporations have managed to create in
their pursuit of profit to the exclusion of all else including the health of
their customers.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

>
> "DGDevin" wrote:
>> Because they can't even get all their own members of Congress to go
>> along. A bunch of them (especially from the south) are worried about
>> losing their seats to Republicans so they'll resist voting for what
>> many of their constituents have been convinced is rampaging
>> socialism.
>
> Maybe it is time for a visit from Vito<G>.
>
> Sounds like he could limit his time to the senate.
>
> Lew

Ah so you do subscribe to the Chicago style of politics.

As long as there is a (D) after the office holder of course. If it were
an (R) trying to force that kind of thing through, you'd be screaming
bloody murder.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Jack Stein" wrote:

> What does owning private property have to do with SOCIALISM?

More to the point, what does universal health care have to do with
SOCIALISM?

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Bottom line.....................................
>
> It's "Whitey" based demagogy playing the race card.
>
> Just look at who is playing the "Stop Obama" game.
>

Was it "Whitey" that stopped the Clinton plan because of race too?

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:05:10 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:

> 80-85% of the country is happy with their
> health care as it is, ...
>

Considering that all the polls show the elctorate to be pretty evenly
divided on Obama's plan, I have great difficulty believing your numbers.

>
> The dumb ones are those like you that think this is a
> Democrat/Republican issue. It is an American/Amerikan issue. A
> Socialist/Capitalist issue. An Individual control/Government control
> issue.
>

I've been reading a biography of Thomas Jefferson. When he was helping
set up the state of Virginia, he proposed that all free men who did not
own land, or who owned less than 50 acres, be given enough government
land to make up the 50 acres. Omigod, SOCIALISM way back then!

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:03:04 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:32:04 -0400, the infamous "Ed Pawlowski"
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>
You're responding to a post from Sept 13th? Six weeks ago? And I
thought I was slowing down :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:
---------------------------------------------
It is worth noting as well that the problem is less the uninsued and
more the $2500 for 4 stitches.....The hospital and/or ER have a
cost/expence structure quite beyond ration or reason. Sadly during the
entire "health care" debate we've had no attention paid to the actual
cost structure.
----------------------------------------------------

Think the repeated references to The Cleveland Clinic, The Mayo Clinic
and Johns Hopkins recognize the above issue and suggest they may be a
model to a solution.

Lew
.




>
>
> --
> Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Thats because you don't understand how government defines decreased costs.


Same way they save you money. They want to increase your tax by 50%. People
scream and they only tax you an additional 25%, thus they SAVED you 25%.
Please be grateful for that.

"Jack Stein" wrote:

> Wonder who you think will be making those decisions?

<snip the balance>

Floyd R. Turbot, American, would be proud of your little tirade.

Lew

Jack Stein wrote:
>
> > Here's one example: The poor cannot contribute meaningfully to
> their fellow
>> men. I ask you, who has helped humanity more through works of
>> charity: Mother Theresa or Bill Gates?
>
> Certainly not Bill Gates. Gates is a perfect example of how one man,
> or companies greed can have some good things result, yet overall, it
> is really, really bad for mankind. So, in MicroSofts case, the
> illegal monopoly resulting from his illegal business practices
> resulted in everyone using a common operating system. That can be
> viewed as good. The bad thing is the worlds worst OS is now used by
> everyone, one that is incompatible with everything else, and one that
> has cost the world incalculable trillions of dollars in lost
> productivity, development and design.

The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation has distributed over $11 billion dollars
worldwide to various projects.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx

Mother Theresa - aside from being a role model worthy of the greatest
admiration - during her entire life probably helped 10,000 people. With
medicines, food, clothing, and compassion. She saved maybe 5,000 lives and
gave hope to thousands more.

The Gates Foundation eclipses her work by orders of magnitude. Every day.

Point is, no matter how motivated, a poor person can only help a few of his
or her destitute neighbors. A rich person can do so very much more.

It's the same with countries. How many relief supplies did Bangladesh or
Somalia send to the Tsunami victims in Indonesia?

>
> Microsoft has been sued. The big one, the one that they lost and
> would have cost them dearly, and benefited the world immensely, was
> mitigated greatly when the DOJ for some unknown reason (payoff is the
> first thing that jumps to my mind) appeals their victory when the
> judge decided not only was MS in violation of the Sherman anti-trust
> act, but that the remedy sought by the DOJ was grievously
> understated. How much it cost Gates to have the victors appeal their
> HUGE victory is unknown. I think it is unheard of in judicial
> circles for the victors to appeal.

So, the final result was discarded by the judicial system, yes? As to your
supposition that the DOJ and the appellate courts were compromised, the same
claim could be made of the trial court. Both claims are supposition.

As for the victor appealing, it happens all the time. Appeals are based on a
misapplication of the law. Either side can, and often does, appeal when the
law is not followed. The DOJ, especially, has a duty to see that the law is
followed, irrespective of the results. If the DOJ felt there was a
miscarriage of justice, it was their duty to appeal!

>
> In fact no monopoly in the USA has ever been
>> found to have violated anti-trust laws after having achieved that
>> monopoly position solely by internal growth (those that have been so
>> deemed usually got that way through acquisitions).
>
> Microsoft got that way via preventing sales of competing products with
> illegal, exclusionary tactics. Everyone at the time knew this, and
> the DOJ proved it in court. Unfortunately, greed and corruption
> overruled the victory, and the world has suffered, and computing was
> set back probably 50 years, maybe more.

So the ultimate decision was unpalatable to you and you attribute the final
result to "greed and corruption" rather than the rule of law. Heh!

>
>> That said, most monopolies are good for the consumer.
>
> No, they are not.

I can be persuaded. Give us a few examples of an unregulated monopoly being
provably bad for the consumer. Not what "might" have been, but what is or
was. For example, you cannot prove that the computing world would be better
today had Microsoft been broken up or otherwise bothered - the world may
just as well be worse off.

I would think your best approach to this request would be a situation where
there were two aggressive competitors but, for some reason not involving its
competitor, one of the companies disappeared. What happened to the market
with the remaining company having all the business? Did it gouge its
customers? Or did it lower the price of its product in the hopes of gaining
new customers (As did Standard Oil in the case of Kerosene)?

That said, Microsoft is its own biggest competitor! If it can't produce a
better product in its next rendition of an operating system (or whatever),
its revenue stream vanishes. We're not talking bread here; we're talking a
"durable good." Actually an operating system is more "durable" than the
common things we think of, like refrigerators or cars.


>
>> The poster-boy for
>> monopolies, Standard Oil, drove down the price of Kerosene from
>> $3.00/gallon to five cents and did it in only three years. The
>> people who were involved in the whale oil business screamed, but for
>> the rest of the country night was turned into day by the use of
>> Kerosene lamps. In Standard Oil's case, it was not the consumer who
>> was hurt by Standard Oil's practices, it was the competitors.
>
> Left unchecked, as in Microsoft's case, you get garbage products, and
> high prices.

Bottom line: What we have is a willing buyer and a willing seller. There is
no compulsion on the part of Microsoft and no despair on the part of the
consumer. Each enter into the transactions willingly and both leave the
transaction better off than before it took place. Wealth has been created.

On 09/13/2009 10:59 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Do you
> think those options would be available if the government runs health care?

I'm not American so the discussion doesn't really impact me. However, I
was under the impression that the proposed legislation allowed for a
public insurance option in addition to all the private ones.

> How many choices do you have for the motor vehicle department?

Around here (Saskatchewan, Canada) basic insurance is provided by the
government along with the license plates (at competitive rates relative
to the other provinces, and without any subsidization) but you can go to
any insurance company you want for additional coverage.

> i.e, if you can't see the difference between the choices you have now and a
> federally mandated, unconstitutional, federally run health system, there is
> nothing more that can be discussed.

I didn't think that this was actually in the proposed bill.

Chris

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> DGDevin wrote:
>
>> Phisherman wrote:
>>
>>> I'm an extreme Libertarian and it is my guess no Libertarian will
>>> support Obama's Health care plan. It is financially irresponsible.
>>> Government, please get out of my face!!!
>>
>> So how do you feel about various industries including the health
>> insurance industry being in your face? They keep raising the cost
>> of health insurance
>> while finding ways to deny coverage to those who need it.
>
> You do realize that if you don't like one health insurance company,
> you are perfectly free to find another, or to lobby your employer to
> change insurers -- if enough employees are having problems, your
> employer will most likely listen. If you are denied, nothing stops
> you from fighting via the legal system or paying yourself -- that may
> lead to indebtedness, but if people are willing to go into debt to
> get that flat-screen TV or the newest car, you'd think something that
> will save their lives would be viewed as a good investment. If you
> don't like the price, you can shop around -- you'd be surprised the
> prices you can get on medical if you pay without insurance -- you
> save a lot of paperwork for the doctors. Do you think those options
> would be available if the government runs health care? How many
> choices do you have for the motor vehicle department?
>
> i.e, if you can't see the difference between the choices you have now
> and a federally mandated, unconstitutional, federally run health
> system, there is nothing more that can be discussed.
>
>
>> They manage to
>> consume 20% of the money they take in for administrative overhead, at
>> least
>> several times what it costs in other industrialized nations.
>> Competition is supposed to drive down prices for consumers, yet the
>> health insurance industry has achieved the exact opposite. Did you
>> know the health care industry shifts about a tenth of what you pay
>> for health insurance to cover
>> their costs in treating uninsured patients? Did you know that
>> despite spending the most on health care of the 13 wealthiest
>> nations that life expectancy in America is the lowest of those 13
>> nations, while infant mortality is the highest?
>
> Did you know that survival rates from cancer are the highest in the
> United States compared to other countries, especially those with
> socialized medicine? That is a much better measure of health system
> success than life expectancy since that is driven strongly by
> genetics and thus demographics in some of those countries that are
> very homogeneous compared to the US. As far as infant mortality, you
> also have to examine the definitions that other nations use.
>
>
>> So who, other than the govt., is supposed to do
>> something about this?
>
> I'd feel a whole lot better if the government were doing a bang-up
> job on the health care programs it already runs. VA? Medicare?
> Indian Health Service? Not exactly glowing testimonials. But if we
> give them the whole sector, they'll make it work. Yeah, I'm
> convinced.
>
>
>

Excellent retort. In sum, we spend more per capita than other countries
BECAUSE WE CAN. Other countries spend less than we for a lot of reasons,
chief among them is they don't have the wealth to do so.

A consequence of this deficiency is lowered expectations. Here in the U.S.,
I EXPECT a tooth extraction to involve anesthesia - not so in Britain. Here
I EXPECT an MRI, and possibly surgery, for a torn knee ligament within a few
days* - it's months in other industrialized countries.

----------
* In some, admittedly rare, cases, the MRI diagnosis takes place within
MINUTES of the injury (think professional football). The entire concept of a
portable MRI machine in the locker room, or just down the street, of a
British soccer stadium is so patently absurd as to be laughable.

On 09/14/2009 11:17 AM, Phisherman wrote:

> I like the idea of hospitals charging $300 for all emergencies. That
> would help keep the hypocondriacs and flu patients from taking
> resources from those that really need it. I rushed a friend to a
> hospital once, he had a burst appendix. He passed out on the floor
> while filling out page 4 of the 7 required pages to be admitted.

The admitting nurse didn't recognize him as an urgent case? Seems odd.

Chris

Robatoy wrote:

> That fucking corporate greed will be the death of all us....

Bingo, ditto, bingo, ditt...fuck'n A!!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Steve Turner wrote:

> Another thing that intrigued me about the empty posts is that we use
> them in another group to represent a moment of silence when somebody has
> passed.

At one time here they were a form of disagreement ... generally when BAD
was involved.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"DGDevin" wrote:
> Because they can't even get all their own members of Congress to go
> along. A bunch of them (especially from the south) are worried about
> losing their seats to Republicans so they'll resist voting for what
> many of their constituents have been convinced is rampaging
> socialism.

Maybe it is time for a visit from Vito<G>.

Sounds like he could limit his time to the senate.

Lew

Scott Lurndal wrote:

>> Yup, 8 to 10% of what we pay for insurance is shifted to cover the
>> costs of
>
> You need to document that number; How was it derived?

It's been quoted in the media of late; I saw it on the AMA website if memory
serves.

> 25% overhead is entirely too much. Need to get rid of the insurance
> companies entirely to save any money in health care. Add in the
> savings in the hospitals, doctor's, etc. due to less paperwork, and
> you end up cutting 50% or more from the costs of medical treatment.

Their high administrative costs aside, many practices of the insurance
industry (like canceling coverage when they can get away with it, including
in the middle of someone's chemo therapy) are loathsome and should not be
tolerated.

"Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:05:10 -0500, Jack Stein <[email protected]>
> wrote:
. The
> more Obama pushes health care, the more people dislike it. Go Obama!

I'll second that.

Robatoy wrote:
>> Greed is good.
>>
>> One great worthy (I think the Ramban) said long ago: "If not for
>> greed, no man would marry, build a house, or father a child."
>>
>> Another great worthy (Gordon Gekko) said: "The point is, ladies and
>> gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is
>> right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the
>> essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms;
>> greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward
>> surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save
>> [us], but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."
>
> To accumulate wealth by ambition and drive is one thing.
> To accumulate wealth by extortion, such as Insurance Companies, Oil
> Companies, Banks, IRS borders on the criminal.

Absolutely! But it's not the greed that is bad - it is the method of
pursuing it or the results to which it's put that causes the harm.

DGDevin wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
>
>>> Need I point out that that solution STILL leaves you paying for Joe
>>> - just via a different path :-).
>>
>> There's a difference worth noting: you wouldn't only be paying for
>> Joe's stitches, but also for all the clerical overhead needed for the
>> government to process the medical and accounting information.
>>
>> Guess who pays /those/ bills....
>
> Who pays for the 20% administrative overhead the insurance companies
> absorb today? Health insurance administration in Canada absorbs 6%,
> it's 4% in France and an astonishingly efficient 1.5% in Taiwan. What
> baffles me is why so many folks are apparently content paying an
> extra 20% for insurance that goes to executive salaries and marketing
> campaigns and so on while being horrified at the thought of the
> supposedly greater inefficiency govt. would bring to the process. The
> insurance companies have been getting away with murder--refusing
> customers with pre-existing conditions, finding excuses to drop
> customers who paid their premiums for years but now need treatment,
> raising their rates far ahead of inflation, not to mention absorbing
> a fifth of the money they take in for "administration." We're being
> screwed six ways from Sunday *now* by the industry--are we just
> supposed to bend over and smile forever, paying more than any other
> nation on earth for health care while coming in 13th among wealthy
> nations in life expectancy and infant mortality? My usual instinct
> is to suspect that govt. can usually makes things worse, but when it
> comes to health care we need to do something different, it can't go
> on like it is now because we simply can't afford it.

But you said it yourself: "...so many folks are apparently content..." If so
many are content (85% by the last measure), why take a chance on screwing it
up?

The Senate plan will be introduced tomorrow (Wednesday). It will contain a
mandatory insurance provision that will require as much as 17% of a family's
income (roughly equivalent to doubling their rent). This manadatory
provision is necessary in order to pay for the new coverages.

Of course those who can't afford the required insurance premium will have
its value subsidized by the government (they really do think we can't use
numbers).

And who, besides the president, says we can't afford it? I suggest the
difference between 16% health premium and a 30% tax rate in the U.S. is
better than 0% health premium and a 50-70% tax rate as in the UK, France,
Canada, and other countries held up as exemplars.

Life expectancy and infant mortality are flawed metrics for the efficacy of
a health-care delivery system. First, many people in this country die from
things totally removed from the medical universe: traffic accidents,
gang-related shootings, executions, terrorism, suicides. When a drunk drives
into a bridge support at 100 mph, neither the best nor cheapest medical
system in the world will do any good. (Consider also Princess Diana.)

A better metric is life expectancy for five years AFTER diagnosis of an
extreme disease. In virtually ALL cases, the U.S. leads the world. For
example, after a diagnosis of chronic heart failure, the rate of survival
for five years is:

U.S. - 96%
Canada - 86%
U.K. - 55%

Similar numbers obtain for breast, prostate, and indeed, all cancers.

Also, many deaths are attributable to social factors beyond the influence of
the medical system. The survey you quote (in which the U.S. ranks 13th) also
ranks South Africa as, like, third from the bottom! South Africa has the
best medical system in Africa - it was the home of the first heart
transplant, for crying out loud! South Africa also has the highest incidence
of AIDS, about which even the best medical system can do almost nothing.

Infant mortality is another bad hat. When a severely premature infant is
born in the U.S., we move heaven and earth to save its life. Many,
unfortunately, expire after heroic measures add only a day or two to the
infant's life. In France, NO measures are taken for an infant whose birth
weight is less than about 1.5kg. Virtually ALL these deaths are recorded as
"stillborn."

"Tom Veatch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:17:11 -0400, Phisherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I rushed a friend to a
>>hospital once, he had a burst appendix. He passed out on the floor
>>while filling out page 4 of the 7 required pages to be admitted.
>
> Must be a hospital specific thing. The only time I've been to the ER
> in a true emergency situation, I was treated immediately and the
> paperwork came later. The necessary medical stuff (pharmaceutical
> allergies, etc.) was taken verbally while treatment was underway.
>
The last time I went to an ER, they told me that they couldn't see me until
I filed out the paperwork. Then they complained that there was to much blood
on the paperwork to read it.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

> There will be no Republican support for an Obama plan.
>
> There was an election last November, the people spoke, so get on with
> the job.
>
> With majorities in both the house and the senate, why are the Dems
> interested in bipartisan support?

Because they can't even get all their own members of Congress to go along.
A bunch of them (especially from the south) are worried about losing their
seats to Republicans so they'll resist voting for what many of their
constituents have been convinced is rampaging socialism.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:35:03 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

> Seems like that is shrinking government
> and government control of property and transferring it to private hands,
> the exact opposite of socialism. The government did not take that land
> from someone else to give it to another.

Tell that to the Indians :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:10:21 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:

> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>
>> I've been reading a biography of Thomas Jefferson. When he was helping
>> set up the state of Virginia, he proposed that all free men who did not
>> own land, or who owned less than 50 acres, be given enough government
>> land to make up the 50 acres. Omigod, SOCIALISM way back then!
>
> What does owning private property have to do with SOCIALISM?

If you don't think that land redistribution and socialism are bedmates,
you need to read a little more history :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 09/14/2009 10:44 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:
> Chris Friesen wrote:

>> Presumably there's already hospital paperwork to cover treatment of
>> uninsured individuals, so the only additional effort would be to send
>> the claim to the government.
>>
>> I assume that the hospital would submit it as an electronic claim and
>> unless it was exceptional in some way it would be handled automatically.
>> It seems unlikely that they would have actual people handling most of
>> that stuff.
>
> Ok - feel free to change "clerks" to programmers, analysts, systems
> engineers, application specialists, systems administrators, operators,
> tech writers, managers, etc at HQ, regional, and district levels...

Sure, but all that stuff has to be done anyways for the paying patients.
The incremental work to handle the non-paying patients should be
comparatively small.

Chris

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Death panels?
>> Paid-for abortions?
>> Treating illegal aliens?
>> Rationing?
>> Waiting lists?
>>
>> I agree they are not in any of the pending bills. But here's the
>> dirtly little secret:
>>
>> They are not NOT in there! There is no language prohibiting them. If
>> the
>
> heysoose christos, this has got to be the stupidest thing I've heard
> yet from looney HeyBub. Why should there be any language
> prohibiting
> them? This isn't constitutional, it can be ammended or struck
> (either way) at any time in the future.
>

Because all the bills set up agencies to administer the programs. Without
the prohibitory language, the regulatory agencies are free to establish
whatever criteria, requirements, permissions, or prohibitions the
bureaucrats choose.

While you are correct that the bills - or eventual law - can be amended or
changed, the fact that these conditions are not there at the outset is
indicative of nefarious intent.

Phisherman wrote:
>
> Stop the waste. If Medicare/Medicade have worked well, I might be for
> the proposed plan.
>

Not to disagree, but sometimes stopping the waste costs more than ignoring
the inefficiency. You can't build a house without making sawdust (unless
you're using mud bricks).

As an example, the IRS doesn't seize someone's house, garnish their wages,
and file suit in federal court over a delinquent tax bill of two dollars!

No, wait...

Upscale wrote:
> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> dollars? Now, add in the rest of the country and you don't need
>> much imagination to see that the 80-85% that are happy with their
>> current
>
> I don't believe that 85% bullshit for one second, but just for the
> sake of argument, let's assume it's true. The US has a population of
> 300 million. That leaves 45 million people that are unsatisfied with
> your healthcare setup. That's a god awful lot of people who feel
> they're not receiving adequate healthcare.
>
> 45 million. Use a little perspective will you?

The ~85% figure of people being "satisfied" with their health insurance (not
care) is correct. There have been at least three large surveys that all come
up with about the same figure.

Still, there's a difference between "feeling" the health care was inadequate
and not actually receiving proper health care. Probably that percentage of
folks are just malcontents who, upon receiving a free bar of gold, would
complain that it wasn't in a box. In other words, the patient's impression
is not the best metric for deciding "proper."

I might be hopping mad over a leg amputation, but medically it may have been
the proper treatment.

Charlie Self wrote:
> On Sep 20, 8:19 am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Upscale wrote:
>>> "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> dollars? Now, add in the rest of the country and you don't need
>>>> much imagination to see that the 80-85% that are happy with their
>>>> current
>>
>>> I don't believe that 85% bullshit for one second, but just for the
>>> sake of argument, let's assume it's true. The US has a population of
>>> 300 million. That leaves 45 million people that are unsatisfied with
>>> your healthcare setup. That's a god awful lot of people who feel
>>> they're not receiving adequate healthcare.
>>
>>> 45 million. Use a little perspective will you?
>>
>> The ~85% figure of people being "satisfied" with their health
>> insurance (not care) is correct. There have been at least three
>> large surveys that all come up with about the same figure.
>>
>> Still, there's a difference between "feeling" the health care was
>> inadequate and not actually receiving proper health care. Probably
>> that percentage of folks are just malcontents who, upon receiving a
>> free bar of gold, would complain that it wasn't in a box. In other
>> words, the patient's impression is not the best metric for deciding
>> "proper."
>>
>> I might be hopping mad over a leg amputation, but medically it may
>> have been the proper treatment.
>
> Who did they survey? You're telling us to believe that the 15% of
> people without health insurance are likely to be the only ones
> dissatisfied with health insurance in this country? Plain and simple
> horseshit.
>
> If the figures baffle you, as clear thought seems to, 45 million
> Americans are without health insurance. There are about 300 million
> Americans. Forty-five million is 15% of 300 million.

Harris survey, satisfied with health insurance, grades A, B, or C = 85%
(Table 1A)
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NEWS/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=781

Kaiser poll September, 2009: Health plan rated Excellent or Good - 90%
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/7979.pdf

Greenberg-Quinian (Democratic pollsters) 71% satisfied with existing health
plan
CBS-NYT: 50% satisfied
ABC-Washington Post: 54% satisfied
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/01/americas-health-insurance-plans/strong-satisfaction-health-insurance-coverage/

From just today (9/28/2009)
"Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by
President Obama and congressional Democrats. ...56% are opposed to the
plan."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:vPerm.2338$tl3.757
@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

>
> "DGDevin" wrote:
>
>> What's puzzling is why he waited all summer, why he let the baboons
>> (and their handlers) tear up the place. Now many people have been
>> scared spitless and the spineless clowns in Congress (whose first
>> priority is always re-election) are afraid to go toe-to-toe with the
>> various industry lobbies that want things to stay just as they are.
>> Considering what a tight ship they ran during the campaign it's
>> surprising that the administration has let this get as out of
>> control as it has.
>
> There will be no Republican support for an Obama plan.
>
> There was an election last November, the people spoke, so get on with
> the job.
>
> With majorities in both the house and the senate, why are the Dems
> interested in bipartisan support?
>
> Must be some reason.
>
> But then again, I'm not a politican.
>
> Lew

I think you know, Lew, that there are some Democrats who are a lot
farther to the right than some Republicans.

But, I don't understand why so many American towns and cities have fire
departments supported by local taxes, whether they have volunteer or
professional firemen. And yet, basic health insurance cannot be paid for
by some kind of involuntary contributions? I really don't make much
difference between the need for me and my family to have fire insurance
and health insurance. But then, I used to be even further left than I am
now. Now, I think that left is fine, but needs to be financially
responsible. Like getting some real oversight over those bankers. After
all, I did buy 100 shares Lehman when they were ~$17 and watched that go
up in smoke ...


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Tom Veatch" wrote:

> I don't believe congress is talking about forcing you or me to buy
> fire insurance on pain of confiscatory fines. (local fire
> departments
> don't equate to fire insurance, by the way)

More IBS (Intellectual Bull Shit).

1) What is being proposed is that everyone must purchase health
insurance.

2) If you can not afford to buy health insurance, tax rebates,
incentives, etc will be provided to help offset the cost of health
insurance.

Lew

Charlie Self wrote:
\
> Given cost and all else, I'll take my VA medical care over my wife's
> civilian care any day.

Ditto ... although it has noticeably changed, for the worse IMO, in the
past twenty years, with the class/quality of employees slipping
drastically. Although it may be regional, around here you would now
swear you were in a f*cking US Post Office.

I've also noticed lately that the facilities at the DeBakey VA Medical
Center here in Houston, supposedly of the most modern, are showing
definite signs of being ill maintained. The actual medical care still
seems to be good to excellent, which is all that counts, but
surroundings generally portend the future ...

> And I do love people who say things like ...Americans are happy with
> what they have..." which is obvious bullshit to describe a system that
> is a mess and getting worse.

With regard to insurance, that should probably be: "happy/lucky to have
what they got" ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Let the debate begin.
>
> Lew


Well, like him or not, he can get people fired up. That's how ministers and
politicians have made their mark, good or bad, for centuries. It does not
have to be good information, just good speech

"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CW wrote:
>
>> The last time I went to an ER, they told me that they couldn't see me
>> until I filed out the paperwork. Then they complained that there was to
>> much blood on the paperwork to read it.
>
> If you think the government has any chance in hell of reducing the paper
> work, you are really delusional.


Nope, it won't. To get good and timely health care, you will still have to
have private insurance. The government run health care will end up being
just another tax which will, in effect, increase your health care
cost...substantially. Has anybody thought of how many employers will cease
to offer health insurance claiming that there is no need as the government
will take care of it. This will increase cost to the individual as they will
now have to pay the full price of their insurance.

"Government run health care is like a man giving himslf a transfusion from
one arm to the other, but government spills half of it in the middle."

Paul Harvy



"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's
money."

Margaret Thatcher

DGDevin wrote:

> Phisherman wrote:
>
>> I'm an extreme Libertarian and it is my guess no Libertarian will
>> support Obama's Health care plan. It is financially irresponsible.
>> Government, please get out of my face!!!
>
> So how do you feel about various industries including the health insurance
> industry being in your face? They keep raising the cost of health
> insurance
> while finding ways to deny coverage to those who need it.

You do realize that if you don't like one health insurance company, you
are perfectly free to find another, or to lobby your employer to change
insurers -- if enough employees are having problems, your employer will
most likely listen. If you are denied, nothing stops you from fighting via
the legal system or paying yourself -- that may lead to indebtedness, but
if people are willing to go into debt to get that flat-screen TV or the
newest car, you'd think something that will save their lives would be
viewed as a good investment. If you don't like the price, you can shop
around -- you'd be surprised the prices you can get on medical if you pay
without insurance -- you save a lot of paperwork for the doctors. Do you
think those options would be available if the government runs health care?
How many choices do you have for the motor vehicle department?

i.e, if you can't see the difference between the choices you have now and a
federally mandated, unconstitutional, federally run health system, there is
nothing more that can be discussed.


> They manage to
> consume 20% of the money they take in for administrative overhead, at
> least
> several times what it costs in other industrialized nations. Competition
> is supposed to drive down prices for consumers, yet the health insurance
> industry has achieved the exact opposite. Did you know the health care
> industry shifts about a tenth of what you pay for health insurance to
> cover
> their costs in treating uninsured patients? Did you know that despite
> spending the most on health care of the 13 wealthiest nations that life
> expectancy in America is the lowest of those 13 nations, while infant
> mortality is the highest?

Did you know that survival rates from cancer are the highest in the United
States compared to other countries, especially those with socialized
medicine? That is a much better measure of health system success than life
expectancy since that is driven strongly by genetics and thus demographics
in some of those countries that are very homogeneous compared to the US.
As far as infant mortality, you also have to examine the definitions that
other nations use.


> So who, other than the govt., is supposed to do
> something about this?

I'd feel a whole lot better if the government were doing a bang-up job on
the health care programs it already runs. VA? Medicare? Indian Health
Service? Not exactly glowing testimonials. But if we give them the whole
sector, they'll make it work. Yeah, I'm convinced.



> Do you imagine that the insurance companies and
> drug companies and so on will voluntarily decide that the pursuit of
> profit with
> no regard to the harm they do cannot continue? Or do you dismiss all this
> in the belief that the suffering of tens of millions of your fellow
> citizens is simply not your problem, and that there is no way it will ever
> be your turn to be told you aren't covered for something your doctor says
> you need?



--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Lew Hodgett wrote:

> "Phisherman" wrote:
>
>> Stop the waste. If Medicare/Medicade have worked well, I might be
>> for
>> the proposed plan.
>
> You must have missed it.
>
> Stopping the "waste" in Medicare/Medicaid is one of the sources of
> funds to help pay for the new plan.

There's a great argument and recommendation. What is preventing them from
stopping the waste now? Why should this takeover of 1/6 of the US economy
have to happen first before waste in Medicare happening now is stopped?
Since Medicare is a government program, why is it that this magical new
program is going to be any less subject to fraud and waste than the
government system already being poorly managed?


Bottom line, the only way they are going to make this save money is by
rationing health care. Somebody is going to decide what treatments are
given and to whom and who gets to "take the pain pill". After all,
someone's spirit and love of life is too subjective to judge, their age
[and political status] is purely objective.

>
> BTW, Medicare works quite well, just ask those who have it.
>
>> Sure, for starters how about reducing the deficit?
>
> Unless health care costs are reduced, it will be a cold day in hell
> when the deficit gets reduced.
>
> BTW, you missed my earlier questions:
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Not to be a wise ass, but how many Libertarian members of congress are
> there?
>
> How is it financially irresponsible?
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Lew

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> And I do love people who say things like ...Americans are happy with
> what they have..." which is obvious bullshit to describe a system that
> is a mess and getting worse.
> **************************************************
>
> That should read "some" Americans. I'm very happy with mine, but I know
> I'm better off than most with our plan.
>
> We definitely need some changes, but my concern is what the changes will
> be and how much it will really cost us. The government track record for
> efficiency is not the best.
>
> Also, if there are going to be Death Panels, where do we send a list of
> nominations for ah, shall we say "award recipients"?


Are we thinking "Mother-In-Law?" < :o)

Dave in Houston

Andrew Barss wrote:
> HeyBub <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Excellent retort. In sum, we spend more per capita than other
>> countries BECAUSE WE CAN. Other countries spend less than we for a
>> lot of reasons, chief among them is they don't have the wealth to do
>> so.
>
> But the problem is, that extra spending on health care does not make
> us live longer or better lives. Here' a very good video presentation
> of some of the facts of the matter, comparing US and foreign
> expenditures to e.g., survival rates for various things:
>
> http://brightcove.newscientist.com/services/player/bcpid2227271001?bctid=30583310001
>
>
>
> Well worth watching. It discusses, among many other things, the fact
> that a lot of the cutting-edge expensive tests equipment is owened by
> the doctors, who need to recoup their investment asap.

Your points are well taken but they do not negate the choices. Spending more
for a Cadillac won't get you to your destination any faster or any safer.
It's the consumer's choice. Whether the test equipment is owned by your
local doctor or the Chinese is irrelevant as to whether you consent to its
use.

The bottom line is that the patient chooses to spend more because he has the
funds available - either out of his own pocket or through insurance.

If a patient is told an expensive test is available, but, given the
circumstances, the test will only detect a problem in 1% of the time is a
choice for the patient. Telling the patient that the test is unavailable or
that its use is below the 10% threshold is another matter entirely.

On Sep 13, 8:03=A0am, "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Let the debate begin.
>
> > Lew
>
> Well, like him or not, he can get people fired up. =A0That's how minister=
s and
> politicians have made their mark, good or bad, for centuries. =A0It does =
not
> have to be good information, just good speech

Now... if his team had a better quarterback,,,,,

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>
>>
>> OK, how does transferring land that the government was holding to
>> private individuals equate to socialism? Seems like that is
>> shrinking government and government control of property and
>> transferring it to private hands, the exact opposite of socialism.
>> The government did not take that land from someone else to give it to
>> another.
>
>It's not "socialism," it's tyranny when the government uses imminent doman
>to obtain the land in the first place so they can sell it to another private
>person or corporation.

It's worse than that. In the case cited, Thomas Jefferson proposed giving away
land that the government stole from it's previous owners. No imminent domain or
other legal process. Just armed troops.

Of course, that is how most of the world's land has changed hands at some time
or another.

-- Doug

On Sep 14, 12:59=A0am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0 You do realize that if you don't like one health insurance company, y=
ou
> are perfectly free to find another, or to lobby your employer to change
> insurers -- if enough employees are having problems, your employer will
> most likely listen. =A0If you are denied, nothing stops you from fighting=
via
> the legal system or paying yourself

.... blah, blah, bla sniped

what on earth are you saying? ever hear about insurance and pre-
existing conditions? know what the major cause of bankruptcy is in
the u. s.?

>There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>
> Rob Leatham

What happened to "If you are going to be dumb you better be tough"?
From your posts I figured you must be the toughest guy on the
internet.

On Sep 24, 12:09=A0pm, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > He sounds like the guys around here who write in to the papers
> > insisting that the feds should have left the car business to the car
> > guys and the banks to the bankers.
>
> Yes, thats how it works in a capitalist society.
>
> > Given cost and all else, I'll take my VA medical care over my wife's
> > civilian care any day.
>
> Your wife must have some really nasty medical care. =A0I guess it might b=
e
> a regional thing, but in Pittsburgh, the last hospital anyone wants to
> go to is the VA.
>
> > And I do love people who say things like ...Americans are happy with
> > what they have..." which is obvious bullshit to describe a system that
> > is a mess and getting worse.
>
> Thats why so many Americans run to Canada and England for medical care,
> right?
>

In Pittsburgh? Wow. I did realize the physical plant was battered all
to hell when I was there about seven years ago, but the care was
outstanding.

Actually, Americans seem to be running to Costa Rica and India and
similar places for some kinds of super-costly (in the U.S.) elective
medical care. I don't doubt quite a few in the northern areas head to
Canada for care, too. England is too costly to get to, I'd think, if
you're looking for low cost medical care.

If you thought as quickly as you rattle off bullshit, you might be
slightly more believable.

On Sep 14, 12:03=A0am, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in news:sZ-
> [email protected]:
>
>
>
> > "tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:8a071df6-d492-4339-befe-a10fcd5a8cb6@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com..=
.
> >> On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Let the debate begin.
>
> >>> Lew
>
> >> Forgive me. Which debate? =A0Tom
>
> > Jet vs. Delta
>
> Spruce, Pine, Fir: =A0Which is the superior material to support a Cherry
> table top?

Poplar or soft maple.

HeyBub wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>
>>
>> OK, how does transferring land that the government was holding to
>> private individuals equate to socialism? Seems like that is
>> shrinking government and government control of property and
>> transferring it to private hands, the exact opposite of socialism.
>> The government did not take that land from someone else to give it to
>> another.
>
> It's not "socialism," it's tyranny when the government uses imminent doman
> to obtain the land in the first place so they can sell it to another
> private person or corporation.

In this case, it was not eminent domain, this was frontier land. ... and
no, Doug Johnson, I'm not going to engage you on your silly statements
below.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

HeyBub wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>>
>> For those of you who only get the three-letter news stations and/or
>> the NYT -- approximately 800k to 1.2M people showed up in D.C. on
>> Saturday to show their opposition to the health care bills in
>> Congress. Apparently the three-letter news organizations were too
>> busy with other stuff to cover this to any great extent.
>>
>>
>
> They had most of their staffs digging into the ACORN business.
>
> No, wait...


LOL.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

>This would be no different if you 80 year old mom needed a hip
>replacement or cancer therapy, or any other type of procedure the
>government felt was not cost effective or worth the expenditure. You
>can live in denial all you want, won't change a thing.

Flat not true. My mom had two hip replacements, one at 80 and one at 82.
Medicare ("the government") approved and paid for both of them without the
slightest problem.

I'm glad your wife is doing well. Those things are scary.

-- Doug

On Sep 13, 9:03=A0pm, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in news:sZ-
> [email protected]:
>
>
>
> > "tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:8a071df6-d492-4339-befe-a10fcd5a8cb6@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com..=
.
> >> On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Let the debate begin.
>
> >>> Lew
>
> >> Forgive me. Which debate? =A0Tom
>
> > Jet vs. Delta
>
> Spruce, Pine, Fir: =A0Which is the superior material to support a Cherry
> table top?

Metric vs Imperial?

On Sep 20, 8:19=A0am, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Upscale wrote:
> > "Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> dollars? =A0 Now, add in the rest of the country and you don't need
> >> much imagination to see =A0that the 80-85% that are happy with their
> >> current
>
> > I don't believe that 85% bullshit for one second, but just for the
> > sake of argument, let's assume it's true. The US has a population of
> > 300 million. That leaves 45 million people that are unsatisfied with
> > your healthcare setup. That's a god awful lot of people who feel
> > they're not receiving adequate healthcare.
>
> > 45 million. Use a little perspective will you?
>
> The ~85% figure of people being "satisfied" with their health insurance (=
not
> care) is correct. There have been at least three large surveys that all c=
ome
> up with about the same figure.
>
> Still, there's a difference between "feeling" the health care was inadequ=
ate
> and not actually receiving proper health care. Probably that percentage o=
f
> folks are just malcontents who, upon receiving a free bar of gold, would
> complain that it wasn't in a box. In other words, the patient's impressio=
n
> is not the best metric for deciding "proper."
>
> I might be hopping mad over a leg amputation, but medically it may have b=
een
> the proper treatment.

Who did they survey? You're telling us to believe that the 15% of
people without health insurance are likely to be the only ones
dissatisfied with health insurance in this country? Plain and simple
horseshit.

If the figures baffle you, as clear thought seems to, 45 million
Americans are without health insurance. There are about 300 million
Americans. Forty-five million is 15% of 300 million.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:05:10 -0500, Jack Stein wrote:
>
>> 80-85% of the country is happy with their
>> health care as it is, ...
>>
>
> Considering that all the polls show the elctorate to be pretty evenly
> divided on Obama's plan, I have great difficulty believing your
> numbers.

You are correct about "evenly divided." Rasmussen reported yesterday a split
of 55-42 in opposition to an overhaul:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Still, there have been some recent ratings in the 80% range for
satisfaction:

"Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively.
Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or
injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are
satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.
" (ABC News)
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

"More than eight in 10 Americans questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp.
survey released Thursday said they're satisfied with the quality of health
care they receive." (CNN Opinion Research)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/health.care.poll/index.html

"73%" [Scores by industry, American Consumer Satisfaction Index]
http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=148&Itemid=156

On Sep 13, 6:59=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There will be no Republican support for an Obama plan.
>
> There was an election last November, the people spoke, so get on with
> the job.
>
> With majorities in both the house and the senate, why are the Dems
> interested in bipartisan support?
>

spread the blame around

On Sep 13, 1:41=A0pm, Steve Turner <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Tom Watson wrote:
>
> Speechless today, Tom?
>
Old Keeter (AKA UA001) trick. From the antifaq:

If you get a blank response from somebody with a Delta tool handle, it
means that YOU HAVE WON the argument!! Those opposed to you have been
rendered speechless. You may now rest on your laurels, as everyone in
the group has conceded to you and agrees with your inanity, sorry, I
meant your well-reasoned views. No need to post to that thread
anymore.

Luigi

After reading the subject line, and then seeing who posted it, I was
surprised this took on political overtones.

I have just completed a short but spirited debate with some of my
esteemed colleagues:

"Wet enough or a smooth ride (or glide as I described it), or wet
enough to be good and nasty".

We came to no definitive conclusion either.

No details available, but the conversation was much more interesting
than politics.

Those water slides can be so tricky to judge, dontcha know...

Robert

On Sep 14, 12:06=A0am, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 9:03=A0pm, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ed Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in news:sZ-
> > [email protected]:
>
> > > "tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:8a071df6-d492-4339-befe-a10fcd5a8cb6@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com=
...
> > >> On Sep 13, 12:38 am, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>> Let the debate begin.
>
> > >>> Lew
>
> > >> Forgive me. Which debate? =A0Tom
>
> > > Jet vs. Delta
>
> > Spruce, Pine, Fir: =A0Which is the superior material to support a Cherr=
y
> > table top?
>
> Metric vs Imperial?

Smooth vs Crunchy?

On Sep 16, 12:24=A0pm, Luigi Zanasi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 9:08=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > CW wrote:
> > > The last time I went to an ER, they told me that they couldn't see me=
until
> > > I filed out the paperwork. Then they complained that there was to muc=
h blood
> > > on the paperwork to read it.
>
> > If you think the government has any chance in hell of reducing the pape=
r
> > work, you are really delusional.
>
> I think you are letting your ideology blind you to reality. Every
> other government-run health care system in advanced countries has a
> lot less paperwork than the US private health care system, hence the
> much lower administrative costs.
>
> Luigi

Angela works in the health care system. A lot of our friends do. Here,
in Canada, and 5 miles away in Port Huron Michigan.
A friend of mine, now passed away, worked in ER in a Detroit hospital.
(He had a tattoo of Snoopy running along side a stretcher with his paw
in a bullet hole.) Another friend used to work in Detroit in
administration and now works here.
All in all, both systems seem to work adequately. The reason some
people are on a long waiting list is due to a shortage of facilities,
doctors, trained personnel... we had a new MRI sitting here, idle for
6 months because we didn't have trained staff.
All systems are trying to cope with a growing, ageing population.
There are success- and horror stories on both sides of the
border...with some big exceptions... people going bankrupt trying to
stay alive. THAT doesn't happen here... and NO rejection due to
previous illnesses.
That fucking corporate greed will be the death of all us....

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:42:58 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>HeyBub wrote:
>> Phisherman wrote:
>>>
>>> Stop the waste. If Medicare/Medicade have worked well, I might be
>>> for the proposed plan.
>>>
>>
>> Not to disagree, but sometimes stopping the waste costs more than
>> ignoring the inefficiency. You can't build a house without making
>> sawdust (unless you're using mud bricks).
>>
>> As an example, the IRS doesn't seize someone's house, garnish their
>> wages, and file suit in federal court over a delinquent tax bill of
>> two dollars!
>>
>> No, wait...
>
>One of the big problems is that the insurance companies are being forced to
>cover the uninsured. How does that happen you ask? Well, hospitals are
>required by law to give at least a minimal standard of treatment to anyone
>who walks into the emergency room, without regard to means. The laws that
>require them to do this do not provide any means of compensating them for
>the costs incurred. Even nonprofit hospitals have to recover costs somehow
>or they run out of money and can't pay their bills. Thus the means they use
>to recover costs is to set their rates so that anyone _with_ insurance gets
>surcharged to cover the uninsured. This means, for example, that Joe
>Homeless walks into the emergency room to get four stitches and he gets them
>for free, while I walk into the same emergency room and get four stitches on
>the same table from the same doctor and get charged 2500 bucks.
>
>One step toward fixing the system would be a Constitutional amendment
>restricting unfunded mandates--if the government says that you _have_ to
>provide a good or service to someone who cannot reasonably be expected to
>pay for it then the government must compensate you for that good or service.


I like the idea of hospitals charging $300 for all emergencies. That
would help keep the hypocondriacs and flu patients from taking
resources from those that really need it. I rushed a friend to a
hospital once, he had a burst appendix. He passed out on the floor
while filling out page 4 of the 7 required pages to be admitted.
Hospitals will work with those without money--you can pay whatever you
can per month until paid up.

"Jack Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> dollars? Now, add in the rest of the country and you don't need much
> imagination to see that the 80-85% that are happy with their current

I don't believe that 85% bullshit for one second, but just for the sake of
argument, let's assume it's true. The US has a population of 300 million.
That leaves 45 million people that are unsatisfied with your healthcare
setup. That's a god awful lot of people who feel they're not receiving
adequate healthcare.

45 million. Use a little perspective will you?

Jack Stein wrote:

>> Because they can't even get all their own members of Congress to go
>> along. A bunch of them (especially from the south) are worried about
>> losing their seats to Republicans so they'll resist voting for what
>> many of their constituents have been convinced is rampaging
>> socialism.
>
> No argument with that, other than "many of their constituents
> recognize as rampaging socialism." "Rampaging socialism" is easy to
> recognize, no need to convince anyone with half a brain... it is what
> it is...

Since these are the same people who are convinced the govt. wants to set up
death panels to decide when everyone will be allowed to die, and give away
free health care to illegal aliens (the clear language of the bill
notwithstanding) and for that matter that President Obama's birth
certificate is a forgery, I'm not too concerned with what they believe.
Anyone who shows up at a town hall meeting to screech that they don't want
the govt. getting involved with their Medicare is frankly too dumb to be
taken seriously. It saddens me that the Republican Party has been reduced
to appealing to the fears of ill-informed yahoos, but that's what it has
come to.