On 07/03/2010 5:04 PM, Frogloogyherringsnacks wrote:
bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 17:21:03 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 15:16:01 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

courtesy of our HMO we had to go 30 miles before we found a doctor
who'd graduated from a US medical school.

how do you feel about the karachi medical school for women? want your
wife to see a doctor who's graduated from that fine instituion?
How does either the house or senate bill address this?

well that's the problem, isn't it? private health care is substandard.
with socialized medicine, we'd be able to pick our doctors.

It does absolutely ZERO to the provider networks or even how the
insurance companies do business. It only guarantees them more business
... Sweet if you are an insurance company, a medical conglomerate or a
drug company. They all get richer and our prices WILL go up..

gee. and how does canuck's view that the middle class should die
address this? care to comment?

Why? Maybe he agrees.
Haven't seen any answers from him, just roadblocks.
Here's something that can't be escaped.
The U.S. health care system is basically socialism for health care
providers and insurance companies.
There are plenty of examples of health care systems around the world
that provide better service for 1/2 to 2/3 the cost.

True. But usually comes with less taxes, less lawsuits, lower
practioner standards, lower cost of living. They often have plans where
the governemtn will sponsor the expensive education buy you have to work
it off afterwards. Including supporting rural areas.

But they don't want to evolve the US system, they want the cash flow.
Two different beasts.

Insurance is not-for-profit, and since the gov ends up subsidizing it,
health care costs and fraud are kept in check.
Here in the U.S. laws are written to do the opposite.

Agreed. Had a buddy who worked at one and said the place was paralyzed
against productive change for the bureaucracy was like an unmovable
titanium ingot.

The big difference between other countries and the U.S. (only "1st
world" country without universal health care) is their pols aren't
bought by special interests.

Interesting.

But "the folks" here like that. It's called "The Capitalistic Freedom
to be socialist when it suits your purpose."

Double standard. But does not give people the right not to pay for it.
One way or anotehr it will be paid. Last I checked, medical people
didn't work for free any more than I do.

Makes us better than everybody else. That's what "the folks" think.
And it's good to have insurance and good health care while others don't,
even if you're paying through the nose.

To a point. But who am I to say people should or should not? I like
leaving the People with the choice.

Money talks. Dying in the street is just a sign you failed.

And you can't bring your money with you.

Having health care shows you did something right, even if it was dumb
luck. What's that saying about money and luck?
The rest of the world else laughs and shakes their head.
"The folks" don't mind. Just shows how stupid and socialist the others
are. There's an answer for that. Rename French fries American fries.
Problem solved.

But people also fail to realize thatn 300 years ago, the medical was
simple. Get a lump or tumor, here is the heroin or cocaine and have a
nice couple of months. (Coke used to be the real thing!)

Today, there is all sorts of expensive stuff they can do to keep you
around longer. But what is the practical limits? And how to make it
fair for everyone and not just be a government hose up your ass.

--
Politicians don't provide anything, the tax payers do.