OT
 

HK wrote:
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.



The plan they are voting on is nothing like either of these. It really
isn't a plan at all. The fact that Obama wants it passed, with the
admission that they will tweak it later, ****es me off. This is
unprecedented. He's on some personal time frame and doesn't seem to
really care what the meat of the plan is.

OT
 

*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.

Who are you?

OT
 

nom=de=plume wrote:

I was just chain-pulling. I knew you felt that way. I'd add gender change
operations to the list that taxpayers shouldn't pay for.


Is this something you're planning? I've heard March Madness is when
vasectomy operations increase in frequency.


Gender changing and vasectomys are unrelated.

OT
 

Larry wrote:


The plan they are voting on is nothing like either of these. It really
isn't a plan at all. The fact that Obama wants it passed, with the
admission that they will tweak it later, ****es me off. This is
unprecedented. He's on some personal time frame and doesn't seem to
really care what the meat of the plan is.

What do you expect with the health care and insurance lobbyists running
the show, and the Republicans just saying "No!"?
This bill is a landmark, and will break the back of that grip if it passes.
There's insurance company regulation in it, and they're now grabbed by
the short hairs.
It's been messy, with too many Dems in the pocket of the insurance
industry to get a good product.
But if it passes it's only the beginning. That's why the Republicans
hate it.
What do you mean no plan? I always hear it's over 2000 pages.
Get your talking points straight.
Let me clue you in - everything is unprecedented. Can't be otherwise.

Jim - Enemy of the status quo in health care. Status quo is Republican.

OT
 

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:14:16 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

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.

It's actually going to be even more complicated than that. Every
country that I'm aware of with universal coverage has some sort of
implicit or explicit rationing of care, i.e., if you don't have a
condition that is immediately life threatening, you go on a waiting
list which can stretch out for months or even years.

Should an individual who can afford to pay be allowed to seek out a
doctor or hospital that can provide the care immediately?

I argue yes, otherwise the whole plan reeks of socialism.

OT
 

"Larry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:

I was just chain-pulling. I knew you felt that way. I'd add gender
change
operations to the list that taxpayers shouldn't pay for.


Is this something you're planning? I've heard March Madness is when
vasectomy operations increase in frequency.


Gender changing and vasectomys are unrelated.


No. Really? Wow Larry.. you sure are smart!

--
Nom=de=Plume

OT
 

"Larry" wrote in message
...
HK wrote:
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.



The plan they are voting on is nothing like either of these. It really
isn't a plan at all. The fact that Obama wants it passed, with the
admission that they will tweak it later, ****es me off. This is
unprecedented. He's on some personal time frame and doesn't seem to
really care what the meat of the plan is.


Right. We've never had that happen before. Call CNN!


--
Nom=de=Plume

OT
 

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:28:20 -0400, W1TEF
wrote:

Obamacare is going to be a fiscal disaster for the
middle class - pay more and get less.

Absolutely right. Unfortunately the current administration only pays
lip service to caring about the middle class.

OT
 

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:42:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:44:51 -0400, HK
wrote:

On 3/19/10 11:45 AM, Eisboch wrote:

"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

Unless for reconstruction after breast removal surgery.

At heart, I'm really opposed to for-profit health insurance. For-profit
health insurance companies add nothing of value to the process of
staying well or getting well. Doctors, nurses, technicals, hospitals,
therapists, drug companies...they help you get well.


This is an alarmingly naive statement. It is inherently in the
"for-profit" insurance company's best interest to persuade, encourage,
and cajole insureds into "staying well." This is why most bona-fide
insurance companies will offer some type of health-and-wellness
program for their insureds. Many plans include memberships to Curves
and typical stay-n-shape type of progams. Too, it is implicitly not
in the health insurance company's mission statement to be a health
care provider. They provide 'financial' protection against
catastropic loss. To be opposed to "for-profit" health insurance in
conflating the health care responsibilities (or value) of both is the
product of confused thinking or the product of disinformation.


Yeah right. As soon as you get sick, they'll look for a way to drop you.
Submit a bill and it takes an act of Congress to get them to pay in a timely
fashion. Lose your job and can't afford Cobra, too bad. You can't get
private insurance if you have any kind of pre-existing condition. The
insurance companies are only interested in one thing: profit. That's fine,
except that has little to do with public health. They provide financial
protection against catastrophic loss unless they can find a way to weasel
out of it.

Learn to read, and learn to think, ma'am.

OT
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Larry" wrote in message
...
HK wrote:
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.



The plan they are voting on is nothing like either of these. It really
isn't a plan at all. The fact that Obama wants it passed, with the
admission that they will tweak it later, ****es me off. This is
unprecedented. He's on some personal time frame and doesn't seem to
really care what the meat of the plan is.


Right. We've never had that happen before. Call CNN!


--
Nom=de=Plume


Yup, and look at the results here in the state of California when they
rammed through a bill at the last moment that nobody read, or understood.
Caused PG&E bankruptcy, high wholesale energy prices, and blackouts.