OT
 

On 3/19/10 7:14 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
m...

If you are indigent, and turn up at a for-profit hospital with a serious
condition, the best you can hope for is short-term stabilization, the
cheapest course of treatment, and a short supply of the cheapest drugs.
You are not going to see the high-dollar docs, either.

Conservatives have been perpetuating this myth of "they have to take you"
for decades, as if that means the indigent will get good care. Well, they
don't...they get the band-aid level of care for their chronic conditions.



I think the concern is that with a government regulated and mandated health
care system, the quality of *all* care will trend to that which you have
described.

Before you jump, understand this: Universal health care is something I
support.
It's one of the few liberal leanings that I have. But, here's one problem
as I see it:

Regardless of how fair and standardized health care becomes, there will
always be
more expensive doctors and optional treatments/services for those who can
afford to pay for them.

When it comes to life or death, how can anyone rationalize that those who
can afford
non-standardized treatments deserve to benefit from them while others can
not?

The debate will start all over again.

Eisboch




If we cannot extend full Medicare to everyone, then I favor the Swiss
system...a number of insurance companies offering a basic plan. All
Swiss must have a basic plan. If you can't afford it, it is subsidized.
All the basic plans provide the same coverage at the same price. Each
basic plan also offers a number of options for those who want them and
can afford them. Thus, and this is a made up example, if you need cancer
surgery, you get it under the basic plan. If you want bigger teats, and
the "want" is only for cosmetic reasons, you have to have one of the
supplemental plans if you want insurance coverage for it.

Frankly, I think the "free market system" is dead. These days, it only
works for the wealthiest. It used to work for everyone willing to work.
Those days are gone.



--


If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say:

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8)
Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 (or higher)

then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer.

OT
 

"HK" wrote in message
m...
On 3/19/10 7:14 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
m...

If you are indigent, and turn up at a for-profit hospital with a serious
condition, the best you can hope for is short-term stabilization, the
cheapest course of treatment, and a short supply of the cheapest drugs.
You are not going to see the high-dollar docs, either.

Conservatives have been perpetuating this myth of "they have to take
you"
for decades, as if that means the indigent will get good care. Well,
they
don't...they get the band-aid level of care for their chronic
conditions.



I think the concern is that with a government regulated and mandated
health
care system, the quality of *all* care will trend to that which you have
described.

Before you jump, understand this: Universal health care is something I
support.
It's one of the few liberal leanings that I have. But, here's one
problem
as I see it:

Regardless of how fair and standardized health care becomes, there will
always be
more expensive doctors and optional treatments/services for those who can
afford to pay for them.

When it comes to life or death, how can anyone rationalize that those who
can afford
non-standardized treatments deserve to benefit from them while others can
not?

The debate will start all over again.

Eisboch




If we cannot extend full Medicare to everyone, then I favor the Swiss
system...a number of insurance companies offering a basic plan. All Swiss
must have a basic plan. If you can't afford it, it is subsidized. All the
basic plans provide the same coverage at the same price. Each basic plan
also offers a number of options for those who want them and can afford
them. Thus, and this is a made up example, if you need cancer surgery, you
get it under the basic plan. If you want bigger teats, and the "want" is
only for cosmetic reasons, you have to have one of the supplemental plans
if you want insurance coverage for it.

Frankly, I think the "free market system" is dead. These days, it only
works for the wealthiest. It used to work for everyone willing to work.
Those days are gone.


Cosmetic surgery should *always* be extra .... although the case can be
made
by some (and probably will) that every woman has the right to big boobs.

I am not talking about this. I am talking about life threatening
conditions.
If better doctors and expensive, non-standardized treatments are available
only to the rich who can afford them, how do you rationalize that those who
can't
pay for them cannot have the same opportunity to live?

Eisboch

OT
 

In article , says...

"*e#c" wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 6:49 pm, HK wrote:
On 3/18/10 6:23 PM, *e#c wrote:



On Mar 17, 2:22 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:12:15 -0400,
wrote:

On 3/17/10 10:06 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
Beware "Big City Yellow Pages" out of Encino California. They work
through AT+T
to provide advertizing. They are sleazy in their sales and do not
honor their
cancellation agreements! Customer service sucks, all they want to do
is steal
your money.

It's too bad that local hospital can't cancel the care it gave
you...you
know, the hospital you didn't pay.

Scotty's homebuilt rowboats going national?

Geese... all they gotta do is look at the scary pictures on his " web
site " and the deals off.......

I have a vague recollection of him stating here that he had some
"health" reason for not building any more boats, but who really knows?
If you ever saw the photos of the rowboat/skiff he built for himself,
you'd laugh your butt off at the paint job...what was left of it.

--

If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say:

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8)
Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 (or higher)

then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer.

Thats the one for his " Viking Funeral " up the muddy creek with his 6
pack.

No Hospital will take him, now that he's ****ed one over..... Dead at
home, amidst all his " boats ".

Pssssst... I have secret for ya.... they HAVE to take him. How do you think
all the illegals get medical care?? I know nothing of Scott's financial
situation, or his dealings with any hospitals, but the law is the law.
Unfortunately, they'd even take care of harry, even though they'd do the
world a favor if they didn't, regardless of his, or his union's ability to
pay.

--Mike


Don't bother listening to Harry, Jps, and Slammer. They really have no idea
what they are talking about, and of course don't have the character to care...

Scotty

OT
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
m...

If you are indigent, and turn up at a for-profit hospital with a serious
condition, the best you can hope for is short-term stabilization, the
cheapest course of treatment, and a short supply of the cheapest drugs.
You are not going to see the high-dollar docs, either.

Conservatives have been perpetuating this myth of "they have to take you"
for decades, as if that means the indigent will get good care. Well, they
don't...they get the band-aid level of care for their chronic conditions.



I think the concern is that with a government regulated and mandated
health
care system, the quality of *all* care will trend to that which you have
described.

Before you jump, understand this: Universal health care is something I
support.
It's one of the few liberal leanings that I have. But, here's one problem
as I see it:

Regardless of how fair and standardized health care becomes, there will
always be
more expensive doctors and optional treatments/services for those who can
afford to pay for them.

When it comes to life or death, how can anyone rationalize that those who
can afford
non-standardized treatments deserve to benefit from them while others can
not?

The debate will start all over again.

Eisboch

I agree with you on universal health care Eisboch but I really don't have a
problem with someone else being able to afford something I can't, wether
it's better health care or a steak and lobster dinner.
I drive a 6 yo pickup. Dodge not Cadillac. I don't begrudge any driving
newer/nicer cars.
That's life

OT
 

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:14:16 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

The debate will start all over again.

The problem is simple from the perspective of the Democrats - the need
to pass health-care reform but make it look like it saves money is
paramount. The only way to do that is to force states into expanding
Medicaid in order to absorb more of the uninsured. Keep in mind that
Medicaid costs are mainly borne by the states.

Will Obamacare actually save money?

No - it's a Ponzi scheme. State taxes will have to increase while the
President and his Congressional minions talk on about the cost
"savings" at the Federal level. States already dragging their asses
along the ground with diminishing revenues will find themselves
desperate for cash infusions - where exactly will that come from?

You're talking hard money here - taxes and revenues. There is no
other solution. And in return, reduced services - assuming that there
are physicians willing to work for $15/hr after spending a million
dollars on their education.

Every doctor I've talked to over the past three/four months hates this
thing and several who are ten/twelve years away from retirement are
planning on tossing in the towel now rather than later and/or changing
career from primary/specialist care to research or just taking their
money and running.

The irony is that the solution has staring them in the face the whole
time - open the anti-trust laws, let the companies compete in an open
market across state lines, allow doctors to charge what they feel is
appropriate for their services and complete tort reform. It seems to
work for worker's compensation - why not for medical practices?

Two of the docs I see on a regular basis told me that they could
charge less for their services if they could reduce their insurance
costs to a more reasonable level.

The one single issue I agreed with Ted Kennedy on was catastrophic
care - that is an area where the government could be of enormous
benefit. Otherwise Obamacare is going to be a fiscal disaster for the
middle class - pay more and get less.


I think you make good points. One of the arguments I've made for years is
for the return
of basic, affordable, catastrophic medical insurance plans. They won't
cover the removal of
a splinter from little Johnny's finger, but *will* cover serious, life
threatening injuries or
diseases. Major catastrophic medical insurance was relatively inexpensive
compared to the
minimal co-pay HMO type programs that pay for a doctor to wipe your nose.

A universal catastrophic health insurance program, subsidized for those who
cannot pay the
full premium (or any of it for that matter) would be far less expensive and
would provide
basic, life threatening care for everyone. Viagra, abortions for
convenience, cosmetic
and other non-life threatening procedures or services would be optional at
extra cost.

Eisboch

OT
 

On 3/19/10 7:58 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
m...
On 3/19/10 7:14 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
m...

If you are indigent, and turn up at a for-profit hospital with a serious
condition, the best you can hope for is short-term stabilization, the
cheapest course of treatment, and a short supply of the cheapest drugs.
You are not going to see the high-dollar docs, either.

Conservatives have been perpetuating this myth of "they have to take
you"
for decades, as if that means the indigent will get good care. Well,
they
don't...they get the band-aid level of care for their chronic
conditions.



I think the concern is that with a government regulated and mandated
health
care system, the quality of *all* care will trend to that which you have
described.

Before you jump, understand this: Universal health care is something I
support.
It's one of the few liberal leanings that I have. But, here's one
problem
as I see it:

Regardless of how fair and standardized health care becomes, there will
always be
more expensive doctors and optional treatments/services for those who can
afford to pay for them.

When it comes to life or death, how can anyone rationalize that those who
can afford
non-standardized treatments deserve to benefit from them while others can
not?

The debate will start all over again.

Eisboch




If we cannot extend full Medicare to everyone, then I favor the Swiss
system...a number of insurance companies offering a basic plan. All Swiss
must have a basic plan. If you can't afford it, it is subsidized. All the
basic plans provide the same coverage at the same price. Each basic plan
also offers a number of options for those who want them and can afford
them. Thus, and this is a made up example, if you need cancer surgery, you
get it under the basic plan. If you want bigger teats, and the "want" is
only for cosmetic reasons, you have to have one of the supplemental plans
if you want insurance coverage for it.

Frankly, I think the "free market system" is dead. These days, it only
works for the wealthiest. It used to work for everyone willing to work.
Those days are gone.


Cosmetic surgery should *always* be extra .... although the case can be
made
by some (and probably will) that every woman has the right to big boobs.

I am not talking about this. I am talking about life threatening
conditions.
If better doctors and expensive, non-standardized treatments are available
only to the rich who can afford them, how do you rationalize that those who
can't
pay for them cannot have the same opportunity to live?

Eisboch





There are cases where cosmetic surgery should *not* be extra.

I think you missed the point of how the Swiss handle it. There's no
differentiation...there's just some options you can pay for that provide
things like...fully private rooms, purely cosmetic surgery, et cetera.

--


If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say:

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8)
Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 (or higher)

then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer.

OT
 

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:21:17 -0400, "mmc" wrote:


"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
m...

If you are indigent, and turn up at a for-profit hospital with a serious
condition, the best you can hope for is short-term stabilization, the
cheapest course of treatment, and a short supply of the cheapest drugs.
You are not going to see the high-dollar docs, either.

Conservatives have been perpetuating this myth of "they have to take you"
for decades, as if that means the indigent will get good care. Well, they
don't...they get the band-aid level of care for their chronic conditions.



I think the concern is that with a government regulated and mandated
health
care system, the quality of *all* care will trend to that which you have
described.

Before you jump, understand this: Universal health care is something I
support.
It's one of the few liberal leanings that I have. But, here's one problem
as I see it:

Regardless of how fair and standardized health care becomes, there will
always be
more expensive doctors and optional treatments/services for those who can
afford to pay for them.

When it comes to life or death, how can anyone rationalize that those who
can afford
non-standardized treatments deserve to benefit from them while others can
not?

The debate will start all over again.

Eisboch

I agree with you on universal health care Eisboch but I really don't have a
problem with someone else being able to afford something I can't, wether
it's better health care or a steak and lobster dinner.
I drive a 6 yo pickup. Dodge not Cadillac. I don't begrudge any driving
newer/nicer cars.
That's life


Well, you're obviously not Harry, jps, or Jim Hertvik! :)
--

"You may give it away, but your honor can never be taken from you. Cherish it."
John H

OT
 

On Mar 19, 8:49*am, I am Tosk wrote:
In article , says....





"*e#c" wrote in message
....
On Mar 18, 6:49 pm, HK wrote:
On 3/18/10 6:23 PM, *e#c wrote:

On Mar 17, 2:22 pm, *wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:12:15 -0400,
wrote:

On 3/17/10 10:06 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
Beware "Big City Yellow Pages" out of Encino California. They work
through AT+T
to provide advertizing. They are sleazy in their sales and do not
honor their
cancellation agreements! Customer service sucks, all they want to do
is steal
your money.

It's too bad that local hospital can't cancel the care it gave
you...you
know, the hospital you didn't pay.

Scotty's homebuilt rowboats going national?

Geese... all they gotta do is look at the scary pictures on his " web
site " and the deals off.......

I have a vague recollection of him stating here that he had some
"health" reason for not building any more boats, but who really knows?
If you ever saw the photos of the rowboat/skiff he built for himself,
you'd laugh your butt off at the paint job...what was left of it.

--

If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say:

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8)
Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 (or higher)

then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer.

Thats the one for his " Viking Funeral " up the muddy creek with his 6
pack.

No Hospital will take him, now that he's ****ed one over..... Dead at
home, amidst all his " boats ".

Pssssst... I have secret for ya.... they HAVE to take him. How do you think
all the illegals get medical care?? I know nothing of Scott's financial
situation, or his dealings with any hospitals, but the law is the law.
Unfortunately, they'd even take care of harry, even though they'd do the
world a favor if they didn't, regardless of his, or his union's ability to
pay.

--Mike

Don't bother listening to Harry, Jps, and Slammer. They really have no idea
what they are talking about, and of course don't have the character to care...

Scotty

I hope your progress towards blowing a gasket on the exercise bike is
going well, stumpy.

OT
 

On 3/19/10 11:28 AM, *e#c wrote:
On Mar 19, 8:49 am, I am wrote:
In , says...





wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 6:49 pm, wrote:
On 3/18/10 6:23 PM, *e#c wrote:

On Mar 17, 2:22 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:12:15 -0400,
wrote:

On 3/17/10 10:06 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
Beware "Big City Yellow Pages" out of Encino California. They work
through AT+T
to provide advertizing. They are sleazy in their sales and do not
honor their
cancellation agreements! Customer service sucks, all they want to do
is steal
your money.

It's too bad that local hospital can't cancel the care it gave
you...you
know, the hospital you didn't pay.

Scotty's homebuilt rowboats going national?

Geese... all they gotta do is look at the scary pictures on his " web
site " and the deals off.......

I have a vague recollection of him stating here that he had some
"health" reason for not building any more boats, but who really knows?
If you ever saw the photos of the rowboat/skiff he built for himself,
you'd laugh your butt off at the paint job...what was left of it.

--

If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say:

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8)
Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 (or higher)

then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer.

Thats the one for his " Viking Funeral " up the muddy creek with his 6
pack.

No Hospital will take him, now that he's ****ed one over..... Dead at
home, amidst all his " boats ".

Pssssst... I have secret for ya.... they HAVE to take him. How do you think
all the illegals get medical care?? I know nothing of Scott's financial
situation, or his dealings with any hospitals, but the law is the law.
Unfortunately, they'd even take care of harry, even though they'd do the
world a favor if they didn't, regardless of his, or his union's ability to
pay.

--Mike

Don't bother listening to Harry, Jps, and Slammer. They really have no idea
what they are talking about, and of course don't have the character to care...

Scotty

I hope your progress towards blowing a gasket on the exercise bike is
going well, stumpy.



It's sadly humorous. Snotty posts here that he's been in the hospital
and left owing $25,000, and he tells us we have no idea of what we are
talking about...even though our comments are based entirely on what he
posted.





--


If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say:

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8)
Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 (or higher)

then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer.

OT
 

"HK" wrote in message
...


Cosmetic surgery should *always* be extra .... although the case can be
made
by some (and probably will) that every woman has the right to big boobs.

I am not talking about this. I am talking about life threatening
conditions.
If better doctors and expensive, non-standardized treatments are
available
only to the rich who can afford them, how do you rationalize that those
who
can't
pay for them cannot have the same opportunity to live?

Eisboch





There are cases where cosmetic surgery should *not* be extra.

I think you missed the point of how the Swiss handle it. There's no
differentiation...there's just some options you can pay for that provide
things like...fully private rooms, purely cosmetic surgery, et cetera.


I was too broad brushed regarding cosmetic surgery. I agree that in some
cases it should be covered for everyone, such as for major birth defects or
injury that would otherwise cause a physical or social disability. I don't
consider boob jobs in that category.

Eisboch