| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Gas Price.....Too High?
Dave,
Refinery output has not only kept pace but has excided it many,many times AND had to cut back. Cut back usually due to lack of charge or Tankage at capacity. http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage |
Gas Price.....Too High?
"Thom Stewart" wrote in message ... Dave, Refinery output has not only kept pace but has excided it many,many times AND had to cut back. Cut back usually due to lack of charge or Tankage at capacity. If that's true, Thom, why is Big Oil whining about their inability to keep up with demand? Inadequate supply, along with high crude prices, is the primary reason they are giving for high prices at the gas pump. My take on high pump prices is simply that Big Oil knows it has very friendly allies in the White House and in Congress--allies who won't take substantive action against runaway, windfall profits resulting from high gasoline prices. Realize of course that having a Democrat president and Congress would make little difference--both parties take huge amounts of money from Big Oil for campaign finance. Until the public outcry is loud enough that our government can't/won't ignore us, the high prices and windfall profits will continue, IMO. Max |
Gas Price.....Too High?
"Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... "Thom Stewart" wrote in message ... Dave, Refinery output has not only kept pace but has excided it many,many times AND had to cut back. Cut back usually due to lack of charge or Tankage at capacity. If that's true, Thom, why is Big Oil whining about their inability to keep up with demand? Inadequate supply, along with high crude prices, is the primary reason they are giving for high prices at the gas pump. My take on high pump prices is simply that Big Oil knows it has very friendly allies in the White House and in Congress--allies who won't take substantive action against runaway, windfall profits resulting from high gasoline prices. Realize of course that having a Democrat president and Congress would make little difference--both parties take huge amounts of money from Big Oil for campaign finance. Until the public outcry is loud enough that our government can't/won't ignore us, the high prices and windfall profits will continue, IMO. Max What distinguishes a windfall profit from just profit? There's much bigger profits made from the internet than oil. Why is profit bad? |
Gas Price.....Too High?
Indeed! Profit is good for America. All thoses retired folks getting
nice dividends on investments, will trickle down and enflame the malls with activity. Google made more profit per dollar spent than Mobil Exxon. Capt. Suzy 35s5 NY |
Gas Price.....Too High?
Max,
Have you looked at the UN_GODLY earnings of the Oil Companies. They're breaking all time records! The whinning is part of the cover-up for people like you that buy into it! http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage |
Gas Price.....Too High?
"Bob Crantz" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... "Thom Stewart" wrote in message ... Dave, Refinery output has not only kept pace but has excided it many,many times AND had to cut back. Cut back usually due to lack of charge or Tankage at capacity. If that's true, Thom, why is Big Oil whining about their inability to keep up with demand? Inadequate supply, along with high crude prices, is the primary reason they are giving for high prices at the gas pump. My take on high pump prices is simply that Big Oil knows it has very friendly allies in the White House and in Congress--allies who won't take substantive action against runaway, windfall profits resulting from high gasoline prices. Realize of course that having a Democrat president and Congress would make little difference--both parties take huge amounts of money from Big Oil for campaign finance. Until the public outcry is loud enough that our government can't/won't ignore us, the high prices and windfall profits will continue, IMO. Max What distinguishes a windfall profit from just profit? Profits earned while taking advantage of price hikes as a consequence of events, such as natural disasters (e.g.--Katrina). There's much bigger profits made from the internet than oil. And what has that got to do with this discussion? Why is profit bad? Profit is fine, provided it is not exorbitant on commodities that people require for earning their livings and living their lives. Say, for example, that for some arcane reason food producers found themselves in a monopolistic situation, like Big Oil, in which they could charge $11.50 for a loaf of bread and $13.00 for a gallon of milk. Or shoe manufacturers/importers found themselves in a similar situation and were able to fetch $150 for the cheapest pair of shoes on the market. Of course these things do not happen, thanks to competition, supply and demand. There essentially is no competition in petroleum production-distribution these days. It is highly monopolistic, and they can charge whatever they wish. And they are doing so, using any available reason to "justify" their price gouging. Current oil company profits are waaaay beyond their usual and customary percentage of gross receipts. Max |
Gas Price.....Too High?
"SUZY" wrote in message oups.com... Indeed! Profit is good for America. All thoses retired folks getting nice dividends on investments, will trickle down and enflame the malls with activity. Google made more profit per dollar spent than Mobil Exxon. The difference, Joe, is that people don't require Google for the daily administration of their lives. They DO require petroleum products. Max |
Gas Price.....Too High?
"Thom Stewart" wrote in message ... Max, Have you looked at the UN_GODLY earnings of the Oil Companies. They're breaking all time records! The whinning is part of the cover-up for people like you that buy into it! People like ME "that buy into it?" Have you been reading my posts, Thom? Max |
Gas Price.....Too High?
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Wed, 03 May 2006 18:09:31 -0500, Frank Boettcher said: So what exactly is an UN_GODLY profit. I know what a hellacious loss is. I lived through that. Frank, in the lexicon of the left an Ungodly profit is any profit that goes to anything other than the speaker's favorite cause. Businesses aren't supposed to earn profits they're supposed to do good deeds. Since I'm not left-leaning, I guess my personal lexicon doesn't include terms such as UN_GODLY profits, but it does include *price-gouging.* Profit is hardly a dirty word, but when dealing with commodities that are literally necessities for life and living, profits that substantially exceed the usual and customary percentage of gross receipts can logically be thought to result from price-gouging. Katrina was given as the substantive reason for raising prices last year. Ostensibly the hurricane stemmed the flow of crude from offshore rigs, it shut down a refinery or two temporarily, and it made distribution complicated, at least in the southern tier of states. The oil companies responded by raising prices to help control supply, which was a prudent action. But those prices never fell back to pre-Katrina levels following the relative normalization of the issues mentioned above. Rather they continued to rise. Other reasons, some arcane and inexplicable, were given by Big Oil for the continued increase in prices, but most people tend to disbelieve them. My personal belief is that Big Oil has continued to raise pump prices mostly because they can do so with impunity, thanks to friendly faces in the government. I also believe the Bush Administration is supporting Big Oil in this move in order to help gain acceptance for drilling in ANWR. For whatever reason, and despite a public outcry of "foul play" and exorbitant profits, they continue to gouge the public's collective pocket book in order to maximize the bottom line. Under the current governmental situation, I honestly believe that Big Oil could raise the price of gasoline to over $5 per gallon with equal impunity, if not public acceptance. If we all didn't require gasoline as an intrinsic part of our lives, we'd quit buying it and prices would fall as demand would be outstripped by supply. But we don't have a choice. We must have fuels. And when the producers of fuels are earning profits far beyond the normal percentage of their gross receipts, the process is flawed. Max |
Gas Price.....Too High?
On Thu, 04 May 2006 04:43:09 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote: "Dave" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 03 May 2006 18:09:31 -0500, Frank Boettcher said: So what exactly is an UN_GODLY profit. I know what a hellacious loss is. I lived through that. Frank, in the lexicon of the left an Ungodly profit is any profit that goes to anything other than the speaker's favorite cause. Businesses aren't supposed to earn profits they're supposed to do good deeds. Since I'm not left-leaning, I guess my personal lexicon doesn't include terms such as UN_GODLY profits, but it does include *price-gouging.* Profit is hardly a dirty word, but when dealing with commodities that are literally necessities for life and living, profits that substantially exceed the usual and customary percentage of gross receipts can logically be thought to result from price-gouging. Katrina was given as the substantive reason for raising prices last year. Ostensibly the hurricane stemmed the flow of crude from offshore rigs, it shut down a refinery or two temporarily, and it made distribution complicated, at least in the southern tier of states. The oil companies responded by raising prices to help control supply, which was a prudent action. But those prices never fell back to pre-Katrina levels following the relative normalization of the issues mentioned above. Rather they continued to rise. Other reasons, some arcane and inexplicable, were given by Big Oil for the continued increase in prices, but most people tend to disbelieve them. My personal belief is that Big Oil has continued to raise pump prices mostly because they can do so with impunity, thanks to friendly faces in the government. I also believe the Bush Administration is supporting Big Oil in this move in order to help gain acceptance for drilling in ANWR. For whatever reason, and despite a public outcry of "foul play" and exorbitant profits, they continue to gouge the public's collective pocket book in order to maximize the bottom line. Under the current governmental situation, I honestly believe that Big Oil could raise the price of gasoline to over $5 per gallon with equal impunity, if not public acceptance. If we all didn't require gasoline as an intrinsic part of our lives, we'd quit buying it and prices would fall as demand would be outstripped by supply. But we don't have a choice. We must have fuels. And when the producers of fuels are earning profits far beyond the normal percentage of their gross receipts, the process is flawed. Max Products from oil were as much a necessity in the eighties as they are today. I didn't hear anyone raising the issue of what might happen in the future if something wasn't done to stop the tremendous consolidation that was taking place and the mass panic exodus of talent from the Industry. Health and wellness is a much more important commodity. In the Forties the average doctor made about twice what the average worker made and was considered well paid. Today the average doctor makes approximately five times and much and many specialists make 15-20 times. In an industry that controls supply side by the number of available seats in Medical schools which is way out of proportion to the talent available. And that has been going on most of my life. As a pre-65 forced retiree I spend five times as much for health care as gasoline. And I'm healthy. And I don't hear very much about that. But let gasoline go up and the cry begins. Mostly from people driving urban assault vehicles and throwing their plastic (oil) disposable junk out the window. And lining up at WalMart to get that cheap chinese stuff, which is the primary reason for the world market in energy going through the roof. I just wish I was still in the industry so that I could "benefit" from the "price gouging" I certainly did my time with pay freezes and cuts and layoffs, stock depreciation and dividend suspension, in the hard times. You either believe in free enterprise or you don't. Frank |
Gas Price.....Too High?
Maxprop wrote:
ly is no competition in petroleum production-distribution these days. It is highly monopolistic, and they can charge whatever they wish. And they are doing so, using any available reason to "justify" their price gouging. Current oil company profits are waaaay beyond their usual and customary percentage of gross receipts. The Chief Excutive of Exxon Mobil, Lee Raymond will retire this year, he's going to have a hard time making ends meet, his parachute is only about half a billion, someone's got to pay for it. Cheers Marty |
Gas Price.....Too High?
Google is now key to many peoples livelyhood. It's a great tool.
I use more google than gas to make a living. Capt. Suzy 35s5 NY |
Gas Price.....Too High?
The Chief Excutive of Exxon Mobil, Lee Raymond will retire this year,
he's going to have a hard time making ends meet, his parachute is only about half a billion, someone's got to pay for it. Cheers Marty He worked for it...he dedicated his life to the company, and he was smart enough to make them pay for that service. Why do you have a problem with a smart hard working man leverging his career to the max ? Do you think a company is going to do it for him? Do you think they do it for every slouch with the company? The days of a golden watch, 30 yrs with the same company... and a nice cush retirements are OVER! Capt. Suzy 35s5 NY |
Gas Price.....Too High?
It's about time to.
Houston and other key oil states are long overdue. Oil is a boom or bust cycle that runs in 10-15 year cycles. So don't expect a break for another 9-12 years. Have you priced carpet lately? Paint thinner? Resin? Raw plastic? Any petro based product? Oil exploration is going deep water now, thats going to cost MUCHO money and require major investments in equipment, and the services of our mariners will be in high demand, the bars will be rich. It's boom time again! Get with the program. Capt. Suzy 35s5 NY |
Gas Price.....Too High?
Frank said
You either believe in free enterprise or you don't. BRAVO!!!!! well said Frank! Capt. Suzy 35s5 NY |
Gas Price.....Too High?
Max,
Sorry about lumping you in with the group as I did. Frustration I guess. Sorry. http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage |
Gas Price.....Too High?
OzOne wrote:
On 4 May 2006 09:41:02 -0500, Dave scribbled thusly: On Thu, 04 May 2006 04:43:09 GMT, "Maxprop" said: If we all didn't require gasoline as an intrinsic part of our lives, we'd quit buying it and prices would fall as demand would be outstripped by supply. But we don't have a choice. We must have fuels. And when the producers of fuels are earning profits far beyond the normal percentage of their gross receipts, the process is flawed. Such appalling economic ignorance!! So please explain the process of supply and demand driving up prices. Does it actually two or three times more to produce a gallon of petrol when there is a high demand? We have bananas at $11.00/kg here because a cyclone wiped out a huge portion of our growing area. Can you explain why it cost more to grow a banana in the unaffected areas now? Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. Gee...we could export some to you. I paid 49 cents a pound earlier this week at the grocer's. |
Gas Price.....Too High?
Ozone wrote Oh yeah. So you contend that when there is demand for a product then production cost rise so the producer is making less. In my case above, the bananas that were originally sold at about $1.20/kilo are now being sold at $11/kilo. Growers and distributors are making an extra $9.80/kilo. There is no rise in any cost involved....it's called profiteering! well, monkey boy, no one is forcing you to buy bananas. SV |
Gas Price.....Too High?
"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message ... Today the average doctor makes approximately five times and much and many specialists make 15-20 times. Where have you been, Frank? 15-20x? Hardly. Nearly all medical reimbursement to physicians is now third party, and the rates of reimbursement have been cut dramatically. Whereas a cardiologist could reasonably presume to earn in excess of $500K per year in the mid-90s, today they are lucky to clear $200K before taxes on average. Top-notch surgeons used to earn well over a million per year, but work harder now, do more surgeries and make half that or less. There are a few physicians in private-pay only settings who still make the megabucks, but they are few and far between. In an industry that controls supply side by the number of available seats in Medical schools which is way out of proportion to the talent available. Really? Have you chatted with emerging med school grads these days? My recommendation to you is that you'd be well-advised to stay very healthy in your later years. Entrusting your life to some of these new physicians would seem riskier than skydiving. Medicine doesn't pay nearly as well as it used to, ergo the top-notch students don't apply to the schools in the percentage they used to. They now go into computer-related and finance fields, where the money is. I was one of 69 optometry students chosen from a field of nearly 1000 qualified applicants in 1980. Today the entering class at my school is 60 students drawn from roughly 450 qualified applicants. Med schools take about 250 students annually from a field of roughly 1500 applicants, but of the 1250 who don't get into one school, about 70% of them get into another school. You've implied that the supply side of medical doctors is controlled ostensibly to keep earning high for those in the profession. What would you propose? Would you take all of the qualified applicants in order to spread the money around? And what would the result of that move be? My best guess is that fewer and fewer qualified applicants would show up each year. Money and prestige are and always have been the primary driving force behind the interest in medicine, but are becoming mitigated more and more each year. Stay healthy. And that has been going on most of my life. As a pre-65 forced retiree I spend five times as much for health care as gasoline. And I'm healthy. And I don't hear very much about that. Do you really believe physicians' fees are responsible for the high cost of medical care? If so, you'd better do some research. Dr. fees are only a small part of the equation. Hospital costs are a far larger percentage, and profits to health care insurers is an equally-large percentage. And the cost of absorbing the expense of hosptial and medical care for the uninsured, impoverished masses may just be the largest percentage. In any discussion of illegal immigration, this factor must be considered, because it's significant. My wife had an undocumented Mexican patient on her floor at the hospital who required extensive care and treatment for a period of 6 weeks. After incurring an unpaid and unreimbursed (by the gov't.) bill in excess of $1million, the hospital wanted to dismiss the patient to long-term care, but no one would take her. So the hospital covered the cost of putting the woman on a private jet and flying her to Mexico City, where she was turned over to Mexican authorities for extended care. My guess is that they let her die. But let gasoline go up and the cry begins. Mostly from people driving urban assault vehicles and throwing their plastic (oil) disposable junk out the window. And lining up at WalMart to get that cheap chinese stuff, which is the primary reason for the world market in energy going through the roof. Yup. Do you advocate paying more for inferior, more costly domestic goods? Do you think you'll find anyone standing in line behind you in that philosophy? Max |
Gas Price.....Too High?
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message ... Today the average doctor makes approximately five times and much and many specialists make 15-20 times. Where have you been, Frank? 15-20x? Hardly. Nearly all medical reimbursement to physicians is now third party, and the rates of reimbursement have been cut dramatically. Whereas a cardiologist could reasonably presume to earn in excess of $500K per year in the mid-90s, today they are lucky to clear $200K before taxes on average. Top-notch surgeons used to earn well over a million per year, but work harder now, do more surgeries and make half that or less. There are a few physicians in private-pay only settings who still make the megabucks, but they are few and far between. In an industry that controls supply side by the number of available seats in Medical schools which is way out of proportion to the talent available. Really? Have you chatted with emerging med school grads these days? My recommendation to you is that you'd be well-advised to stay very healthy in your later years. Entrusting your life to some of these new physicians would seem riskier than skydiving. Medicine doesn't pay nearly as well as it used to, ergo the top-notch students don't apply to the schools in the percentage they used to. They now go into computer-related and finance fields, where the money is. I was one of 69 optometry students chosen from a field of nearly 1000 qualified applicants in 1980. Today the entering class at my school is 60 students drawn from roughly 450 qualified applicants. Med schools take about 250 students annually from a field of roughly 1500 applicants, but of the 1250 who don't get into one school, about 70% of them get into another school. You've implied that the supply side of medical doctors is controlled ostensibly to keep earning high for those in the profession. What would you propose? Would you take all of the qualified applicants in order to spread the money around? And what would the result of that move be? My best guess is that fewer and fewer qualified applicants would show up each year. Money and prestige are and always have been the primary driving force behind the interest in medicine, but are becoming mitigated more and more each year. Good. I don't know how much congruence there is between Australian medicine and the USA, but having doctors who are primarily interested in curing the sick and preventing sickness strikes me as much better selection criteria than people who are interested in money & prestige. I don't have any problem with them having all of the above, just the order of importance. Here, at least 1 med school screens candidates on a range of social factors as well as straight exam performance. Can't see that the results are noticeably worse. With the exception of cutting edge research, it doesn't really take that many brains to be a doctor, and the really bright ones get super bored anyway if they can't do new interesting things all the time. Do I know anything of what I'm talking about? Maybe not, but my wife is a PhD from UNSW Medical school (ie, not a MD) and a department head at one of Australia's biggest teaching hospitals. I have, unfortunately, had 30+ years of moderately close social association with doctors and fellow medical researcher types. They were/are no brighter overall, than my colleagues in other R&D fields, but God, most *think* they are. BTW, it's harder to get into vet school than medicine here in Oz. Less places. Exam score (TER - equiv to your SAT most likely) is as high or higher for vet as medicine. It's just a rationing mechanism, not a determinant of needed ability. PDW |
Gas Price.....Too High?
Maxprop wrote:
"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message ... Today the average doctor makes approximately five times and much and many specialists make 15-20 times. Where have you been, Frank? 15-20x? Hardly. Nearly all medical reimbursement to physicians is now third party, and the rates of reimbursement have been cut dramatically. That is *one* good thing you can say for Canada's system, only one entity to bill. In my province you submit your claim to OHIP once a month, 21 days later they direct deposit into your account. How many insurance companies do you have to bill each month, do they all have the same the claim forms, same claim procedure? I'll bet this doesn't do much to lower your administrative overhead. Cheers Marty |
Gas Price.....Too High?
Martin Baxter wrote:
Maxprop wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message ... Today the average doctor makes approximately five times and much and many specialists make 15-20 times. Where have you been, Frank? 15-20x? Hardly. Nearly all medical reimbursement to physicians is now third party, and the rates of reimbursement have been cut dramatically. That is *one* good thing you can say for Canada's system, only one entity to bill. In my province you submit your claim to OHIP once a month, 21 days later they direct deposit into your account. How many insurance companies do you have to bill each month, do they all have the same the claim forms, same claim procedure? I'll bet this doesn't do much to lower your administrative overhead. Cheers Marty Medical billing is standardized in the US. Claims are submitted on a UB-92 http://www.cigna.com/health/provider...forms/UB92.pdf and coding is done with the ICD-9 code book. The only thing that is different between submissions is the address on the envelope. |
Gas Price.....Too High?
On Fri, 05 May 2006 04:46:02 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message .. . Today the average doctor makes approximately five times and much and many specialists make 15-20 times. Where have you been, Frank? 15-20x? Hardly. Nearly all medical reimbursement to physicians is now third party, and the rates of reimbursement have been cut dramatically. Whereas a cardiologist could reasonably presume to earn in excess of $500K per year in the mid-90s, today they are lucky to clear $200K before taxes on average. Top-notch surgeons used to earn well over a million per year, but work harder now, do more surgeries and make half that or less. There are a few physicians in private-pay only settings who still make the megabucks, but they are few and far between. In an industry that controls supply side by the number of available seats in Medical schools which is way out of proportion to the talent available. Really? Have you chatted with emerging med school grads these days? My recommendation to you is that you'd be well-advised to stay very healthy in your later years. Entrusting your life to some of these new physicians would seem riskier than skydiving. Medicine doesn't pay nearly as well as it used to, ergo the top-notch students don't apply to the schools in the percentage they used to. They now go into computer-related and finance fields, where the money is. I was one of 69 optometry students chosen from a field of nearly 1000 qualified applicants in 1980. Today the entering class at my school is 60 students drawn from roughly 450 qualified applicants. Med schools take about 250 students annually from a field of roughly 1500 applicants, but of the 1250 who don't get into one school, about 70% of them get into another school. You've implied that the supply side of medical doctors is controlled ostensibly to keep earning high for those in the profession. What would you propose? Would you take all of the qualified applicants in order to spread the money around? And what would the result of that move be? My best guess is that fewer and fewer qualified applicants would show up each year. Money and prestige are and always have been the primary driving force behind the interest in medicine, but are becoming mitigated more and more each year. Stay healthy. You're contradicting yourself Max. On the one hand you talk about emerging class being substandard as an indication of the pool and since I know a number of them (but not necessarily a relevant sample) I can't concur; on the other you talk about 450 qualified applicants with 60 selected. And I don't believe a high percentage of those not selected get in at another school. Are you concluding that doctors if paid $200K per year will become discouraged, quit the field and become something else, or will as a result of that "low" pay give substandard service. My position is that fees will come down with more competition but the pay will remain attractive to entry. And that has been going on most of my life. As a pre-65 forced retiree I spend five times as much for health care as gasoline. And I'm healthy. And I don't hear very much about that. Do you really believe physicians' fees are responsible for the high cost of medical care? Yes, to the extent of their poroportional impact on the total cost of health care. Their fees also include their overhead which includes their liability insurance among other things. If so, you'd better do some research. Dr. fees are only a small part of the equation. Hospital costs are a far larger percentage, and profits to health care insurers is an equally-large percentage. And I never indicated they were not. And the cost of absorbing the expense of hosptial and medical care for the uninsured, impoverished masses may just be the largest percentage. Come on Max. Since that slug Dickey Scruggs is suing most of the hospitals in the country in a class action to make himself another billion or so dollars, what they spend on the indigent is public knowledge. Not anywhere near the largest percentage. In any discussion of illegal immigration, this factor must be considered, because it's significant. My wife had an undocumented Mexican patient on her floor at the hospital who required extensive care and treatment for a period of 6 weeks. After incurring an unpaid and unreimbursed (by the gov't.) bill in excess of $1million, the hospital wanted to dismiss the patient to long-term care, but no one would take her. So the hospital covered the cost of putting the woman on a private jet and flying her to Mexico City, where she was turned over to Mexican authorities for extended care. My guess is that they let her die. But let gasoline go up and the cry begins. Mostly from people driving urban assault vehicles and throwing their plastic (oil) disposable junk out the window. And lining up at WalMart to get that cheap chinese stuff, which is the primary reason for the world market in energy going through the roof. Yup. Do you advocate paying more for inferior, more costly domestic goods? Do you think you'll find anyone standing in line behind you in that philosophy? Hitting a sore spot here, Max, since I was one of those domestic manufacturers making an "inferior" product that was "alledgedly" more costly. The product I used to make actually cost a little more now with a strategy to high chinese content. The Corporate genius were shooting for a 25% reduction in cost (with a strategy of no reduction in price BTW). The basic cost is a push, some models higher some models lower, The warranty element of the cost of quality is four times higher. With warranty four times higher, relative quality comparison fairly easy to make. Overall, everybody lost. The end user gets a crappy product with no choice in the matter, other than the competitors crappy product. The company is making less money,(so much less that they sold off the division as a defensive move) and many good people (with average seniority of 25 years) in this country lost their jobs. And were talking about $25-35K highly productive people. Market share for the product is down since it is now "just another chinese import" garnering no end user loyalty. And you might ask, why not just reverse it. Once you dismatle U. S. manufacturing and destroy tooling, the cost of reentry is prohibitive. If you try to go back you would have "more costly domestic goods" Don't get me started on this one. Oh, you already have :) Frank Max |
Gas Price.....Too High?
katy wrote:
Medical billing is standardized in the US. Claims are submitted on a UB-92 http://www.cigna.com/health/provider...forms/UB92.pdf and coding is done with the ICD-9 code book. The only thing that is different between submissions is the address on the envelope. Still you have to keep track of many accounts with diferent providers. Cheers Marty |
Gas Price.....Too High?
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 05 May 2006 07:56:19 -0400, Martin Baxter said: That is *one* good thing you can say for Canada's system, Do I correctly understand you're not entirely thrilled with Canada's system? It has it's good points and it's bad. If you are not really sick, i.e. about to die, it can take a dogs age to get anything done. Wait times for hip and knee replacements can typically run between 3 and 6 months. You can easily twiddle your thumbs in a ER for 4 hours unless you're hemorrhaging a couple of units every 10 minutes. On the other hand bypass surgery occurs in just a few days. My brother went to his GP with chest pain, two days later he was on the table getting a quad bypass. Of course, contrary to what the Government says, it is a two tier system. If you have the bucks and want something done right now, go to the 'states and pay for it, or try Alberta. It is certainly not "free" as many seem to tout, we pay among the highest taxes in the world to finance our health care system. My province introduced a "Health Care Surtax" on top of the general tax levy two years ago. For me that amounts to an additional $600 a year, (the Cdn $ is now up to $0.90 US), no it's not cheap, but it is universal and will do it's best to save your life in an emergency. There are now many procedures and test not covered by OHIP, i.e. PSA test, cosmetic surgeries, a good many dermatological related things, most physiotherapy, chiropractic (thank God), podiatry and you must pay for them yourself. For you personally, up until two years ago one could get a thorough ophthalmic exam at no cost every year, now one must pay, ophthalmologists are not terribly pleased, nor am I, (I only have presbyopia, but hey I'm not getting any younger and it's nice to get completely checked out every couple of years.) I think ours is a better system than yours, at least it won't bankrupt you in the event something like a quad bypass, but it certainly leaves something to be desired. Cheers Marty P.S. for Katy, presbyopia does not mean that I'm Presbyterian. |
Gas Price.....Too High?
Martin Baxter wrote:
Dave wrote: On Fri, 05 May 2006 07:56:19 -0400, Martin Baxter said: That is *one* good thing you can say for Canada's system, Do I correctly understand you're not entirely thrilled with Canada's system? It has it's good points and it's bad. If you are not really sick, i.e. about to die, it can take a dogs age to get anything done. Wait times for hip and knee replacements can typically run between 3 and 6 months. You can easily twiddle your thumbs in a ER for 4 hours unless you're hemorrhaging a couple of units every 10 minutes. On the other hand bypass surgery occurs in just a few days. My brother went to his GP with chest pain, two days later he was on the table getting a quad bypass. Of course, contrary to what the Government says, it is a two tier system. If you have the bucks and want something done right now, go to the 'states and pay for it, or try Alberta. It is certainly not "free" as many seem to tout, we pay among the highest taxes in the world to finance our health care system. My province introduced a "Health Care Surtax" on top of the general tax levy two years ago. For me that amounts to an additional $600 a year, (the Cdn $ is now up to $0.90 US), no it's not cheap, but it is universal and will do it's best to save your life in an emergency. There are now many procedures and test not covered by OHIP, i.e. PSA test, cosmetic surgeries, a good many dermatological related things, most physiotherapy, chiropractic (thank God), podiatry and you must pay for them yourself. For you personally, up until two years ago one could get a thorough ophthalmic exam at no cost every year, now one must pay, ophthalmologists are not terribly pleased, nor am I, (I only have presbyopia, but hey I'm not getting any younger and it's nice to get completely checked out every couple of years.) I think ours is a better system than yours, at least it won't bankrupt you in the event something like a quad bypass, but it certainly leaves something to be desired. Cheers Marty P.S. for Katy, presbyopia does not mean that I'm Presbyterian. I knew that, Martin. So how much of your tax dollar per annum do you contribute for health care? |
Gas Price.....Too High?
katy wrote:
P.S. for Katy, presbyopia does not mean that I'm Presbyterian. I knew that, Martin. So how much of your tax dollar per annum do you contribute for health care? Guess I should have included the smiley. ;-) The average Canadian family pays about 48% of it's income in taxes, (federal and provincial income, federal and provincial sales, booze, gas..etc.), 40% of that goes to health care. Cheers Marty |
Gas Price.....Too High?
Martin Baxter wrote:
katy wrote: P.S. for Katy, presbyopia does not mean that I'm Presbyterian. I knew that, Martin. So how much of your tax dollar per annum do you contribute for health care? Guess I should have included the smiley. ;-) The average Canadian family pays about 48% of it's income in taxes, (federal and provincial income, federal and provincial sales, booze, gas..etc.), 40% of that goes to health care. Cheers Marty OK, so according to 2001 stats, a median family income in Canada was about 68k and you are paying around 13k out of your taxes for health care that doesn't cover some things. If we were to COBRA (pay for total policy on own) our BCBS plan, which covers many of the things you've listed as exclusions, would cost us 9K per annum for a family policy. We do have some small co-pays, which usually add up to another 1.5k/annum ... and when we need something done, it's done quickly and efficiently. The E-room thing is the same all over...the mortuary has to follow you in before they'll see you immediately...My aunt, 80 years old, has her Medicare A and a Medicaid policy on top of that. She went into the dovs 2 weeks ago for pain in her hip...her surgery is scheduled for next Tuesday...he wanted to do it this week but she had to make arrangements for her cat and had some other personal things she wanted to get done. My sister has foster kids, all on Meidcaid policies. They're seen immediately, no co-pays. (I'm just sticking the welfare stuff ....Medicaid...in here because someone will immediately jump in screaming about the poor and disadvantaged...who BTW, are never turned away of there is a legitimate concern..). |
Gas Price.....Too High?
"Martin Baxter" wrote
The Chief Excutive of Exxon Mobil, Lee Raymond will retire this year, he's going to have a hard time making ends meet, his parachute is only about half a billion, someone's got to pay for it. How many such exec.s are there and if we somehow zeroed out their incomes how much would that lower the cost of a gallon of gas?? |
Gas Price.....Too High?
OzOne wrote
So please explain the process of supply and demand driving up prices. Back when I was sleeping through economics classes a prof showed us an equation for maximizing profits. Supply and demand were among the variables that had to be estimated but the prof pointed out that in mature industries (like refining) that these factors were well known and coul be accurately predicted. What was amazing was how a minor (1 or 2%) change in the supply/demand ratio increased or decreased prices and thus profits. Maybe some of the business majors here can provide the actual equation and typical figures. |
Gas Price.....Too High?
"Dave" wrote in message ... Well spoke, Peter. "Well spoke" ? |
Gas Price.....Too High?
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. Good. I don't know how much congruence there is between Australian medicine and the USA, but having doctors who are primarily interested in curing the sick and preventing sickness strikes me as much better selection criteria than people who are interested in money & prestige. I don't have any problem with them having all of the above, just the order of importance. In order from most common to least, the reasons given by pre-med students during selection process interviews with US medical schools is: 1) a desire to practice medicine, 2) a desire to help people, 3) a need to be involved in something significant and important, 4) the money, and 5) the prestige. But when first year medical students were interviewed, the order was somewhat different, with money and prestige leading the list. So, are we to believe your Ozzy medical students are any different than our own? Have you actually talked to any med students there, or are you just shooting from the patriotic hip? Here, at least 1 med school screens candidates on a range of social factors as well as straight exam performance. Can't see that the results are noticeably worse. They do precisely the same here. Often the straight-A students are passed over in favor of those who perhaps had slightly worse GPAs (3.7 to 3.9 on a 4.0 scale) but were involved in extracurricular activities such as charitable organizations, self-improvement projects, and athletics. Well-rounded individuals, it seems, make better physicians than bookworms. Imagine that. With the exception of cutting edge research, it doesn't really take that many brains to be a doctor, and the really bright ones get super bored anyway if they can't do new interesting things all the time. The really bright ones generally find themselves in academia or pure and applied research. You are correct in that it doesn't take an Einstein to practice family medicine. Do I know anything of what I'm talking about? Maybe not, but my wife is a PhD from UNSW Medical school (ie, not a MD) and a department head at one of Australia's biggest teaching hospitals. I have, unfortunately, had 30+ years of moderately close social association with doctors and fellow medical researcher types. They were/are no brighter overall, than my colleagues in other R&D fields, but God, most *think* they are. Often the MD suffix is synonymous with runaway ego. Rational individuals generally place those with PhDs above MDs in the cosmic brilliance pecking order. BTW, it's harder to get into vet school than medicine here in Oz. Same here. Numerically medical schools take a higher percentage of their qualified applicants than do veterinary schools. Less places. Exam score (TER - equiv to your SAT most likely) is as high or higher for vet as medicine. It's just a rationing mechanism, not a determinant of needed ability. The primary reason for more applicants for fewer positions in vet schools is that many people envision helping animals as nobler than helping humans. Not sure why, but studies have shown that veterinary medicine is the most desirable health care profession in the US. It's not for the money, albeit vets have increased their fees and subsequently their incomes dramatically over the past twenty years, relative to most other non-medical professions. Max |
Gas Price.....Too High?
"Martin Baxter" wrote in message ... Maxprop wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message ... Today the average doctor makes approximately five times and much and many specialists make 15-20 times. Where have you been, Frank? 15-20x? Hardly. Nearly all medical reimbursement to physicians is now third party, and the rates of reimbursement have been cut dramatically. That is *one* good thing you can say for Canada's system, only one entity to bill. In my province you submit your claim to OHIP once a month, 21 days later they direct deposit into your account. How many insurance companies do you have to bill each month, do they all have the same the claim forms, same claim procedure? I'll bet this doesn't do much to lower your administrative overhead. We are forced to bill numerous third party carriers here, each with different forms (all on-line now, however) and different reimbursement rates. But the primary difference is that we can pick and choose those carriers we choose to accept, and reject those with reimbursement rates too low to allow us to be profitable or those whose service is substandard. In your situation, your physicians have no choice. They either accept what the government is going to reimburse them for their services, or they can sell shoes for a living. One other point: we have extensive government third party claims here, too, but not as extensive as yours. What is relevant, however, is that the way the government processes claims is never the same way twice (NTSWT--a popular acronym among the health care crowd). Inconsistency doesn't bother the patient, but it makes life absolutely hell for practitioners. Max |
Gas Price.....Too High?
"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message ... On Fri, 05 May 2006 04:46:02 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote: "Frank Boettcher" wrote in message . .. Today the average doctor makes approximately five times and much and many specialists make 15-20 times. Where have you been, Frank? 15-20x? Hardly. Nearly all medical reimbursement to physicians is now third party, and the rates of reimbursement have been cut dramatically. Whereas a cardiologist could reasonably presume to earn in excess of $500K per year in the mid-90s, today they are lucky to clear $200K before taxes on average. Top-notch surgeons used to earn well over a million per year, but work harder now, do more surgeries and make half that or less. There are a few physicians in private-pay only settings who still make the megabucks, but they are few and far between. In an industry that controls supply side by the number of available seats in Medical schools which is way out of proportion to the talent available. Really? Have you chatted with emerging med school grads these days? My recommendation to you is that you'd be well-advised to stay very healthy in your later years. Entrusting your life to some of these new physicians would seem riskier than skydiving. Medicine doesn't pay nearly as well as it used to, ergo the top-notch students don't apply to the schools in the percentage they used to. They now go into computer-related and finance fields, where the money is. I was one of 69 optometry students chosen from a field of nearly 1000 qualified applicants in 1980. Today the entering class at my school is 60 students drawn from roughly 450 qualified applicants. Med schools take about 250 students annually from a field of roughly 1500 applicants, but of the 1250 who don't get into one school, about 70% of them get into another school. You've implied that the supply side of medical doctors is controlled ostensibly to keep earning high for those in the profession. What would you propose? Would you take all of the qualified applicants in order to spread the money around? And what would the result of that move be? My best guess is that fewer and fewer qualified applicants would show up each year. Money and prestige are and always have been the primary driving force behind the interest in medicine, but are becoming mitigated more and more each year. Stay healthy. You're contradicting yourself Max. On the one hand you talk about emerging class being substandard as an indication of the pool and since I know a number of them (but not necessarily a relevant sample) I can't concur; on the other you talk about 450 qualified applicants with 60 selected. Not contradictory at all. The point I didn't make is that the applicant pools are dwindling somewhat, but they are also comprised of less-qualified students than, say, 25 years ago. For example, anyone with a GPA of less than 3.8 needn't have applied to med school in the Seventies. Today the average "qualified" applicant has a GPA of roughly 3.4. And of course programs that still utilize affirmative action use a dual standard for qualifications, allowing GPAs as low as 2.8, plus or minus, for minorities. And I don't believe a high percentage of those not selected get in at another school. Believe what you will--it's true. Of the 1900+ qualified applicants who applied to Indiana University School of Medicine in 2001, only 250 were accepted at IU. Of the remaining applicants fully 70% or more were accepted elsewhere. Most applicants use the "buckshot" approach in applying to medical school, sending out anywhere from 3 to 15 applications--a busy and expensive process, but with generally good results. Are you concluding that doctors if paid $200K per year will become discouraged, quit the field and become something else, or will as a result of that "low" pay give substandard service. A few will when they consider the work, the responsibility, the hours, the call, the legal ramifications, the hassles, the busywork, the politics, and other factors, not the least of which is that many doctors entered the profession believing they'd earn far more. More importantly, the top-notch students won't apply to med school at all, knowing better money is available elsewhere with less gruesome responsibilities and hours. My position is that fees will come down with more competition but the pay will remain attractive to entry. It IS attractive to some, but generally those people aren't the same quality of individual that used to be attracted to medicine. I say "generally" because some very good people do enter medicine, but the overall quality has slipped, and organized medicine will be the first to admit it. And that has been going on most of my life. As a pre-65 forced retiree I spend five times as much for health care as gasoline. And I'm healthy. And I don't hear very much about that. Do you really believe physicians' fees are responsible for the high cost of medical care? Yes, to the extent of their poroportional impact on the total cost of health care. Their fees also include their overhead which includes their liability insurance among other things. If you are hospitalized for an MI (myocardial infarction = heart attack) your total bill will typically break down this way: 75% hospital bill, 15% physician's fees, 10% associated costs, such as outsourced MRIs, etc. That's quite oversimplified, but relatively representative. Thanks to managed care, physician reimbursements have been cut dramatically. The single biggest increase in the cost of health care is hospitalization, with the profit to third-party carriers a close second. In a way, it can be honestly said that doctors have done their part in attempting to limit the cost of health care. If so, you'd better do some research. Dr. fees are only a small part of the equation. Hospital costs are a far larger percentage, and profits to health care insurers is an equally-large percentage. And I never indicated they were not. And the cost of absorbing the expense of hosptial and medical care for the uninsured, impoverished masses may just be the largest percentage. Come on Max. Since that slug Dickey Scruggs is suing most of the hospitals in the country in a class action to make himself another billion or so dollars, what they spend on the indigent is public knowledge. Not anywhere near the largest percentage. Notice I said "may just be". I really don't have the numbers, but I know they are significant, especially at municipal hospitals such as the one employing my wife. Such facilities cannot reject indigent patients. Private facilities can and do. In any discussion of illegal immigration, this factor must be considered, because it's significant. My wife had an undocumented Mexican patient on her floor at the hospital who required extensive care and treatment for a period of 6 weeks. After incurring an unpaid and unreimbursed (by the gov't.) bill in excess of $1million, the hospital wanted to dismiss the patient to long-term care, but no one would take her. So the hospital covered the cost of putting the woman on a private jet and flying her to Mexico City, where she was turned over to Mexican authorities for extended care. My guess is that they let her die. But let gasoline go up and the cry begins. Mostly from people driving urban assault vehicles and throwing their plastic (oil) disposable junk out the window. And lining up at WalMart to get that cheap chinese stuff, which is the primary reason for the world market in energy going through the roof. Yup. Do you advocate paying more for inferior, more costly domestic goods? Do you think you'll find anyone standing in line behind you in that philosophy? Hitting a sore spot here, Max, since I was one of those domestic manufacturers making an "inferior" product that was "alledgedly" more costly. The product I used to make actually cost a little more now with a strategy to high chinese content. The Corporate genius were shooting for a 25% reduction in cost (with a strategy of no reduction in price BTW). The basic cost is a push, some models higher some models lower, The warranty element of the cost of quality is four times higher. With warranty four times higher, relative quality comparison fairly easy to make. Overall, everybody lost. The end user gets a crappy product with no choice in the matter, other than the competitors crappy product. The company is making less money,(so much less that they sold off the division as a defensive move) and many good people (with average seniority of 25 years) in this country lost their jobs. And were talking about $25-35K highly productive people. Market share for the product is down since it is now "just another chinese import" garnering no end user loyalty. And you might ask, why not just reverse it. Once you dismatle U. S. manufacturing and destroy tooling, the cost of reentry is prohibitive. If you try to go back you would have "more costly domestic goods" Don't get me started on this one. Oh, you already have :) Sorry to hear about your situation, Frank. My implication was not that US goods should have been replaced with less costly foreign ones, but that is what has happened, and it's impossible to reverse the situation now. What has been lost is gone and, short of a major global catastrophe, won't be returning ever. But my point is valid--e.g.--the Toyota Camry is the number one selling model in the country now. There must be a reason for that. Max |
Gas Price.....Too High?
On Sat, 06 May 2006 03:22:03 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote: all that stuff above snipped as opinionated, for the most part unsubstantiated, and mostly irrelevant drivel coming from both participants Sorry to hear about your situation, Frank. My implication was not that US goods should have been replaced with less costly foreign ones, but that is what has happened, and it's impossible to reverse the situation now. What has been lost is gone and, short of a major global catastrophe, won't be returning ever. But my point is valid--e.g.--the Toyota Camry is the number one selling model in the country now. There must be a reason for that. Max My situation is fine Max, because of age and position, however many of those who worked for me are struggling through no fault of their own. I am very concerned because what happened to me and mine was unimaginable given the performance of my operation. I was in shock that it could even be contemplated much less initiated. I think it has happened maybe hundreds or thousands of times in this country. I am not a believer in the sustainability of the so called service or transfer economy. I believe without a foundation of value added endeavours were on a slippery slope. Toyota represents a single industry. In my opinion two primary factors put them where they are today. Gasoline prices, cheap in the sixties and before then jumping up in the seventies causing a political reaction by the government (mandated MPG averages) that caused the U. S. auto industry to literally destroy themselves. And U. S. industry in general running Demming out of the country causing him to turn to those attentive ears in Japan. Frank |
Gas Price.....Too High?
Reported figures? Don't trust this sort of language. Especially if "they"
report them. :-) -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Fri, 05 May 2006 04:46:02 GMT, "Maxprop" said: And the cost of absorbing the expense of hosptial and medical care for the uninsured, impoverished masses may just be the largest percentage. According to reported figures that cost represents between 2 and 3% of the total. I think you've been reading too much AMA propaganda. |
Gas Price.....Too High?
In article t,
Maxprop wrote: "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. Good. I don't know how much congruence there is between Australian medicine and the USA, but having doctors who are primarily interested in curing the sick and preventing sickness strikes me as much better selection criteria than people who are interested in money & prestige. I don't have any problem with them having all of the above, just the order of importance. In order from most common to least, the reasons given by pre-med students during selection process interviews with US medical schools is: 1) a desire to practice medicine, 2) a desire to help people, 3) a need to be involved in something significant and important, 4) the money, and 5) the prestige. But when first year medical students were interviewed, the order was somewhat different, with money and prestige leading the list. So, are we to believe your Ozzy medical students are any different than our own? Have you actually talked to any med students there, or are you just shooting from the patriotic hip? Hmm, I think I was unclear. I have no reason to believe that ours differ in motive from yours and would be somewhat surprised if they did. Just that I've never seen such a survey so can't say for sure. Here, at least 1 med school screens candidates on a range of social factors as well as straight exam performance. Can't see that the results are noticeably worse. They do precisely the same here. Often the straight-A students are passed over in favor of those who perhaps had slightly worse GPAs (3.7 to 3.9 on a 4.0 scale) but were involved in extracurricular activities such as charitable organizations, self-improvement projects, and athletics. Well-rounded individuals, it seems, make better physicians than bookworms. Imagine that. Which would indicate that changing from a straight GPA (TER here) as a basis for selection would cost nothing in terms of quality of doctor and *may* pay off in other ways. Thing is, *nobody* I know goes into R&D in most areas with the expectation that they'll get filthy rich. They do it because they're interested in a particular type/class of problem. In fact, obsessed would be a better word than interested. If they do get rich, it's a nice side effect. So - if those truly motivated in the main by money & prestige choose some other profession than medicine, good. I don't regard a doctor practising family medicine as all that much superior to a good auto mechanic, to tell the truth. Less than a vet surgeon tho a vet does have the advantage of burying mistakes with less legal problems. With the exception of cutting edge research, it doesn't really take that many brains to be a doctor, and the really bright ones get super bored anyway if they can't do new interesting things all the time. The really bright ones generally find themselves in academia or pure and applied research. You are correct in that it doesn't take an Einstein to practice family medicine. They get bored, in fact. Friend of mine has given up being a GP and is doing a PhD in a health related area instead. PDW |
Gas Price.....Too High?
katy wrote:
Martin Baxter wrote: katy wrote: P.S. for Katy, presbyopia does not mean that I'm Presbyterian. I knew that, Martin. So how much of your tax dollar per annum do you contribute for health care? Guess I should have included the smiley. ;-) The average Canadian family pays about 48% of it's income in taxes, (federal and provincial income, federal and provincial sales, booze, gas..etc.), 40% of that goes to health care. Cheers Marty OK, so according to 2001 stats, a median family income in Canada was about 68k and you are paying around 13k out of your taxes for health care that doesn't cover some things. If we were to COBRA (pay for total policy on own) our BCBS plan, which covers many of the things you've listed as exclusions, would cost us 9K per annum for a family policy. We do have some small co-pays, which usually add up to another 1.5k/annum ... So we pay about about the same allowing for exchange, there are however two important differences: Everbody gets equal coverage here including the indigent. No one can get dumped by his carrier. Cheers Marty |
Gas Price.....Too High?
Martin Baxter wrote:
katy wrote: Martin Baxter wrote: katy wrote: P.S. for Katy, presbyopia does not mean that I'm Presbyterian. I knew that, Martin. So how much of your tax dollar per annum do you contribute for health care? Guess I should have included the smiley. ;-) The average Canadian family pays about 48% of it's income in taxes, (federal and provincial income, federal and provincial sales, booze, gas..etc.), 40% of that goes to health care. Cheers Marty OK, so according to 2001 stats, a median family income in Canada was about 68k and you are paying around 13k out of your taxes for health care that doesn't cover some things. If we were to COBRA (pay for total policy on own) our BCBS plan, which covers many of the things you've listed as exclusions, would cost us 9K per annum for a family policy. We do have some small co-pays, which usually add up to another 1.5k/annum ... So we pay about about the same allowing for exchange, there are however two important differences: Everbody gets equal coverage here including the indigent. No one can get dumped by his carrier. Cheers Marty Does your medical coverage put age limits on some procedures like in Great Britain? It is my understanding that in GB, if you are over 50, kidney transplant and I believe, dialysis, are not available..also some heart treatments. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:34 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com